Avoid being too academic – even if you’re an academic

Even academics should avoid being too academic. Here’s a hard-hitting 531-word essay on why and how you should avoid being a “smarty-pants” writer. Definitely worth reading.

The Takeaway: Before writing anything – even an email – pause for a moment to visualize your intended reader. This is especially important if you are a specialist and your reader is a layman. A well-developed habit of empathy is the mark of a professional writer.

Journalists’ code words

During my years as a corporate spokesman, I enjoyed many a chuckle at the code words (insinuations, evasions and excuses) used by some journalists.

I was recently reminded of this topic by a quotation from Thomas Pynchon, which appeared in a February 1 article about famous literary “recluses” remaining after the death of J.D. Salinger: “ ‘Recluse’ is a codeword generated by journalists, meaning: ‘doesn’t like to talk to reporters.’ ”

Here are my four favorite code words:

“Unclear” is code for “we couldn’t figure it out, and by press time we couldn’t find a source who could figure it out for us and who was willing to talk to us and who was politically correct.”

“Controversial” is code for “we disapprove of this fact, and so we’d like to just ignore it, but the wires and the European papers have covered it, and by press time we couldn’t find a source who could rationalize it away and who was willing to talk to us and who was politically correct.”

“Ironic” is code for “we think the result should have been different.” (Sometimes used when a government program produces the opposite of what it was ostensibly intended to produce; for example, when a poverty program increases poverty. But these kinds of results are not ironic; they would be expected by anyone who understands economics.)

“No one could have predicted [x]” is code for “neither we nor the politically correct sources we favor predicted it.” Naturally, these same journalists diligently ignore anyone who did in fact predict [x]; for example, the U.S. Government’s defeat in Vietnam, the Crash of 1987, the collapse of the USSR, 9-11, the Great Crash of 2008, and gold above $1,000 per ounce.

Yes, it is also possible to use these words and phrases accurately and honestly – and many reporters do. For example, if a retired sea captain drowned in his bathtub, it would be accurate and honest to call that event “ironic.”

The Takeaway: Don’t emulate dishonest reporters. The habitual use of dishonest diction promotes unclear writing and moral decay.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

The much-abused adverb “literally” (2)

As I illustrated in a recent post, careless writers habitually abuse the adverb “literally.” In an attempt to intensify a figurative expression, they confusingly add “literally” – unaware that “literally” in this case means “I don’t mean this figurative expression figuratively.”

Careful writers avoid this mistake. They use “literally” correctly or not at all. There are many more careless writers than careful writers; that’s why we so rarely see the word “literally” used correctly. Here’s a recent example of a correct use:

An example of “literally” used correctly

A January 10 article on NewsBusters appeared under this headline:

“Venezuela Slipping Into Socialist/Statist Darkness, Figuratively and Literally.”

The article listed the headlines of recent wire stories:

“Venezuela weakens currency for 1st time in 5 years.”

“Chavez Says He’ll Seize Businesses That Raise Prices.”

“Chavez announces new discount ‘socialist’ stores.”

“Venezuela faces risk of devastating power collapse.”

The Takeaway: Don’t use “literally” unless you mean it literally.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

Using only 40 words, Thomas Sowell squelches three mantras

Unlike most academics, Dr. Thomas Sowell is a champion of clear thinking and writing. He has little patience (1, 2) for what he calls “mindless mantras.” In the brief quotation below, he cleverly exposes the vagueness of three mantras: “radical,” “liberal” and “racist.”*

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

The Takeaway: Think. Don’t mindlessly imitate people who use a lot of mantras. These people are dull and lazy. You are a professional writer. You are, and should be, perceptive and diligent.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

*Dr. Sowell has written extensively on racism.

The maniacal use of “issues” (3)

In an earlier post, I discussed the maniacal use of “issues.” I explained how people often use the vague, general word “issues” instead of saying precisely what they mean. I gave an example from Yale University’s web site: “cleanliness issues,” apparently used as a euphemism for, “We think the graduate students are too lazy to clean up after themselves.”

In another post, I pointed out a confusing and possibly dangerous use of “safety issues.”

Here’s another good example of the abuse of “issues.”

Example

If you type “health issues” into Google, Google will report more than 15 million hits. But what precisely is a “health issue”?

When someone says “a health issue,” does he mean a disease, a condition, a syndrome, a disorder, or a malaise? Or does he mean a symptom or an indication? Or a pathogen or allergen? How about an epidemic, a pandemic, or a lack of money to purchase medicines?

Or what about poor health in general, sickliness, inability to remember to take medicines as directed, or ignorance that a certain disease (such as diabetes) may actually be preventable? Or a localized shortage of doctors or nurses or medicines, or an error in prescribing a medicine?

And let us not forget smoking, sexual promiscuity, lack of exercise, addiction to heroin, and the use of dirty needles.

The Takeaway: Don’t be rude to your reader. Before you use “issues,” or any other vague fad-word, ask yourself, “What is a clear way to make my point?”