Can you use the word "lynch" in a story?

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

BurnsWhenIPee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
4,326
Saw a little dust-up this morning over a phrase used by Rick Hummel in the Cardinals-Cubs game story today, where he talked about "the most agitated fans wanted to lynch at least half the roster" after a stretch where the Cards lost 16 of 22 games.

A social media post linking to the story repeated that phrase, and it was taken down (and the story edited to remove it) this morning after people objected to it.

Is it ever OK to use "lynch" like that, and is that something a copy editor (what's that?) needs to save Hummel from himself?
 
I almost feel like that’s one of those “siren” type words where you want to bail the writer out. You know what he means but you just got to take it upon yourself to take that word out and insert in something better.
 
Definitely a siren-type word, IMO.

I know Hummel is a HOF guy and all, and I don't know how willing any copy editor left would be to change his wording, but I can't see the logic behind using that phrasing other than what it was changed to - "getting rid of"
 
The worst/hardest thing about it is that the decision about whether to use the word in that context or not was/would be made more because of its connection to a race/a racist time than because of what the writer actually means or how he's using it.

In the context of how it was written and what the fans might have wanted to do, that was, in fact, the strongest and best verbiage to use.
 
Definitely a siren-type word, IMO.

I know Hummel is a HOF guy and all, and I don't know how willing any copy editor left would be to change his wording, but I can't see the logic behind using that phrasing other than what it was changed to - "getting rid of"
I dunno, in our hyper-sensitive society these days you're just asking for criticism using that word unless it's an individual's last name.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
The only other verbiage that might have been equivalent in its meaning, worked just as well and been just as strong and visually effective for readers, but that might not have drawn any ire (or sirens) that I can think of would be to say that "the most agitated fans wanted to see at least half the roster, say, drawn-and-quartered..."
 
I dunno, in our hyper-sensitive society these days you're just asking for criticism using that word unless it's an individual's last name.

Exactly. The Twitter hive mind is a dangerous thing.
 
Saw a little dust-up this morning over a phrase used by Rick Hummel in the Cardinals-Cubs game story today, where he talked about "the most agitated fans wanted to lynch at least half the roster" after a stretch where the Cards lost 16 of 22 games.

A social media post linking to the story repeated that phrase, and it was taken down (and the story edited to remove it) this morning after people objected to it.

Is it ever OK to use "lynch" like that, and is that something a copy editor (what's that?) needs to save Hummel from himself?
He should have used "defenestrated" because it's a superior word and is unlikely to make anyone butthurt.
 
Last edited:
Guess I'm a dinosaur like Hummel but I can differentiate between the racial connotations and, say, what was done to cattle rustlers and the like. See Clint Eastwood "Hang 'Em High."
 
Guess I'm a dinosaur like Hummel but I can differentiate between the racial connotations and, say, what was done to cattle rustlers and the like. See Clint Eastwood "Hang 'Em High."

Ignoring any racial subtext, if I wrote "the mostagitated fans wanted to murder at least half the roster," I assume this would also be at best problematic.

Granted, we are to a degree weirdly wired to see violence in a rather casual light.
 
I dunno, in our hyper-sensitive society these days you're just asking for criticism using that word unless it's an individual's last name.

Yep. There's simply zero upside. Was anyone on Twitter complimenting Hummel for his wordsmithing?

The last time I can remember reading or hearing that in media was when Kelly Tilghman said "lynch him in a back alley" when joking about what PGA Tour pros would have wanted to do to Tiger Woods. She was suspended. And Golfweek magazine turned that into a cover story with a noose on the cover, which was a beyond-awful editorial decision that cost the editor his job.
 
Yep. There's simply zero upside.

The last time I can remember reading or hearing that in media was when Kelly Tilghman said "lynch him in a back alley" when joking about what PGA Tour pros would have wanted to do to Tiger Woods. She was suspended. And Golfweek magazine turned that into a cover story with a noose on the cover, which was a beyond-awful editorial decision that cost the editor his job.
Was Fuzzy Zoeller guest editing that issue?
 
I probably would have changed the wording to something less inflammatory but equally to the point such as "released" or "waived." Beyond the racial connotation, there's no need to use life-or-death terms (although the baseball-crazed populace of St. Louis might disagree).
 
The only other verbiage that might have been equivalent in its meaning, worked just as well and been just as strong and visually effective for readers, but that might not have drawn any ire (or sirens) that I can think of would be to say that "the most agitated fans wanted to see at least half the roster, say, drawn-and-quartered..."
But is it necessary to even bring up images of people killing the players? No. So you don't need a word that works just as well. You need a word that doesn't turn fans into virtual racists and murderers. It's ****ing baseball.
 
And the turn of phrase was absolutely unnecessary. Here's the full sentence:

"The sweep, after a victory in the finale of a series in Philadelphia, gives the Cardinals a winning streak of four games on the heels of a disastrous stretch of 18 losses in 24 games when the most agitated fans wanted to lynch at least half the roster."

This would be just as effective:

"The sweep, after a victory in the finale of a series in Philadelphia, gives the Cardinals a winning streak of four games on the heels of a disastrous stretch of 18 losses in 24 games that raised questions up and down the roster."
 
But is it necessary to even bring up images of people killing the players? No. So you don't need a word that works just as well. You need a word that doesn't turn fans into virtual racists and murderers. It's ****ing baseball.

Watching an entire baseball game these days can make you want to kill yourself.
 
But is it necessary to even bring up images of people killing the players? No. So you don't need a word that works just as well. You need a word that doesn't turn fans into virtual racists and murderers. It's ****ing baseball.
Most sports are predicated on violence and dominating the opponent. Hell, half the olympic games developed from skills applicable in warfare -- pole vaulting (jumping over an opponent's wall); javelin; wrestling, etc.

Could he have used a better word? I guess. But man, people are too sensitive to this ****. Lynching does not have only one connotation. It might have a prevailing connotation in some people's eyes, but not in everyone's. This is the definition from the top Google hit.

lynch
/lin(t)SH/
  1. (of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.
    "her father had been lynched for a crime he didn't commit"
    synonyms: hang, hang by the neck;
    execute, put to death, kill, murder;
    informalstring up, do in, bump off, knock off;
    literaryslay;
    raregibbet
    "her father had been lynched for a crime he didn't commit"
There's nothing inherently racial about it. Maybe writers in the past shouldn't have used the word "lynching" to describe what was just flat out murder.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top