Cannot vs. would not comment

Fairly regularly, I see sentences like this in stories:

"Mayor Jane Darby said she cannot comment because the lawsuit is ongoing." (Group sues Edisto Beach after town bans religious worship services from its civic center)

She certainly can comment if she wants to, unless there is a clear policy, law, etc., that prevents her.

And maybe there is. But too often stories say an official said he or she "cannot" comment. Often, a stock phrase that like "because the lawsuit is ongoing" is thrown in - phrases that when you parse them really don't say much.

And that subtly makes us complicit in one of the favorite parlor games of many politicians and too many public officials:  linguistic obfuscation.

She would not comment. It's a conscious decision. We should make clear to readers/users that's the case.

If an official says he or she can't comment, then the conversation should be like this:

Them: I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.

You: Why is that?

Them: It's an ongoing legal case.

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision.

Them: I just don't comment on ongoing cases.

You: OK, then you would not comment. I understand.

If, OTOH, there's this:

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision?

Them: Yes, we have a policy against commenting in such cases.

You: Oh, is that a written policy? Where can I get a copy of it?

Them: Uh ....

Then I'd probably still say the person would not comment and cited a (fill in your governing body) policy against talking about ongoing legal cases. (And you should continue pressing for that policy, just because ...)

If the person were able to produce details of that policy or say it was on the advice of a lawyer, etc., then "can't" is closer to acceptable. But you now know details of why and should tell folks.

And even then, I think I'd favor "would not" with the explanation.

The only times I think "cannot" is clearly called for is when there are legal repercussions if the person talks. So if the mayor says she can't comment because of a judge's gag order or she can't comment because state law says officials can't talk about such and such, then OK.

In most cases, whether to comment is a decision made with free will, which takes "would." Even with a "policy," a person usually is free to decide to ignore it. (All the time we use anonymous sources who are doing just that, don't we? So that little nicety doesn't seem to trouble us.)

"Can't" seldom should be used, and when it is it should always have solid explanation, not just a tossed-off stock phrase, because the subtle but important implication is that the decision is being taken out of the person's hands. If we acquiesce, it provides a veil of plausible deniability. It's a reason pols and public officials like to use it, just as they adore the passive ("mistakes were made").

Our job isn't to provide linguistic cover.


(Usage notes:

- The widely established form is "declined to", not just "declined," comment. You decline something offered to you (another piece of pie, perhaps), but you decline to offer something (in this case, a comment) to someone else. The argument could be that you are declining the chance to comment, shortened to declined comment, but that's really not the sense of the interaction. And why even use that bureaucratic form when "would not" is perfectly fine?

- Avoid "refused" - the connotation has overtones of malice on your part. But if you catch his or her honor carting away a bag of money and you ask what's up and all you get is stony silence, then, yeah, "refused" might fit the bill.)

AP style change - collide

Buried in some of the AP style change entries last week was a bit of common sense:

Two objects now don't have to be in motion to collide: The previous entry stated "two objects must be in motion before they can collide. A moving train cannot collide with a stopped train." Now, "We dropped the previous rule that two objects must be in motion before they can collide. The entry has been deleted."

Homepage is also now one word, in keeping with a lot of evolving online usage.

Some interesting AP style changes

Some AP style updates came out today, and while they aren't likely to create the furor that allowing "over" for "more than" did, there are a few interesting things:

Here are the changes and a few of my thoughts:

media Generally takes a plural verb, especially when the reference is to individual outlets: Media are lining up for and against the proposal. Sometimes used with a singular verb when referring to media as a monolithic group: Media is the biggest force in a presidential campaign. (adds reference to use as a singular noun)
This will drive some of my colleagues nuts. What can I say? Welcome to a long-needed recognition of modern usage (and if you want to double up on that Advil dose, remember, data is also allowed as a singular in some uses).

mezcal Clear liquor from Mexico made from a variety of agave plants. (new entry)
Two liquor entries in one update (see whisky below). Is this an acknowledgement that AP style will sometimes drive you to drink?

horchata Spanish and Mexican drink made by steeping nuts, seeds and grains, and served cool. (new entry)

nearshore waters (new entry to show nearshore is one word)

notorious, notoriety Some understand these terms to refer simply to fame; others see them as negative terms, implying being well-known because of evil actions. Be sure the context for these words is clear, or use terms like famous, prominent, infamous, disreputable, etc. (new entry)
This is AP oh-so-carefully edging toward the reality of modern usage. However, just as the enormity/enormousness distinction has been pretty much erased in modern conversational usage, it's always good for professional writers to observe the niceties.

 online petitions Be cautious about quoting the number of signers on such petitions. Some sites make it easy for the person creating the petition or others to run up the number of purported signers by clicking or returning to the page multiple times. (new entry)
Sage advice. File this under the general guidance: Take most things you find online with a grain of salt, a derivative of the almost legendary (yeah, so smite me, I used that word): If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

spokesman, spokeswoman, spokesperson Use spokesperson if it is the preference of an individual or an organization. (adds spokesperson to entry)
Inevitable, really. So now we get to the weasel "preference" language. Just one more thing in the heat of battle that reporters will forget to ask and later rationalize. Just say "spokesperson," for all its ungainliness, is acceptable in all uses, let it go and leave it up to local style.

voicemail (now one word)
Welcome to 2016.

 whisky, whiskey Class of liquor distilled from grains. Includes bourbon, rye and Irish whiskey. Use spelling whisky only in conjunction with Scotch whisky, Canadian whisky and Japanese whisky. (adds Japanese whisky to those spelled whisky)
Have to amend one of my favorite quiz question. But really, if you say you want to be part of a profession with a history like ours, shouldn't you know the niceties?

Refute/Rebut -- we should get it right

How difficult is it to remember the correct usage for refute versus rebut?

Very difficult, apparently, for The State newspaper, which consistently makes the wrong choice.

Rebut means simply to present a counterargument. Refute carries a much greater weight, the connotation that someone has proved the point.

Nothing could be further from the truth in this story, where the referee's story is being disputed even by the NFL's VP of officials. So the referee "rebuts" but hardly "refutes."

Usage - amid/against a backdrop

First, I want to point you to an excellent investigation by the Post and Courier of Charleston and the Center for Public integrity into spending by S.C. legislators and candidates.

But I also wanted to point out a usage issue in this sentence because I increasingly hear and read it:

Amid this backdrop, The Post and Courier/Center for Public Integrity's investigation found questionable spending under the state's ethics laws to be pervasive and unrelated to party affiliation or geography.

The preferred phrase is "against this backdrop." That's the point, the backdrop is literally or figuratively in back of the thing projected against it. You're not in the middle of it.


http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/against-the-backdrop-of

AP style: 'Justify'

AP has issued one of its periodic style updates, and one might be of interest to usage mavens:

Justify: Smith justified his actions means Smith demonstrated that his actions were right. If the actions are still controversial, say Smith sought to justify his actions. 

It's much like refute (proved) and rebut (sought to prove). I like it, but as with all usage issues, AP is splitting hairs a tad. For instance, Merriam-Webster's entry first lists to provide or be a good reason for (something) : to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable, to provide a good reason for the actions of (someone).

To "provide" is a tad less than the AP's take, which would fall more under "prove."
AP is in more line with its master dictionary, Webster's New World 5th: to show to be just, right, or in accord with reason; vindicate.

American Heritage is similar :  To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.

M-W is always considered the more liberal. And in the digital age you've got to deal with the reality that many people are going to get their usage sense from places like Your Dictionary.com (The definition of justify is to provide an explanation or rationale for something to make it seem OK or to prove it is correct or OK.) or Dictionary.com (to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right; to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded), both of which are less restrictive.

So be aware.

When prescriptivism scrapes the railing: plethora

I love the Testy Copy Editors blog overseen by Phil Blanchard. It's one of my daily go-tos.

But occasionally, as is always going to happen at places that ruminate over usage and other editorial matters, the danger is that things take on a "get off my lawn" tone. It happens in this space too, regrettably, though I try to avoid it.

So from TCE today comes this:

Shannon Serpette of Henry is our new copy editor. She comes to the BCR with a plethora of writing experience. Her smiling face is a great addition to our department, and she’s also going to continue doing some writing. If you get a phone call from Shannon or have the opportunity to chat with her, please help us welcome her into the BCR family.
(Bureau County Republican, Princeton, Ill.)

Once Shannon is through her probation, she can put on her big smile and tell the boss to look up the meaning of “plethora,” which the boss probably thought was a compliment.

 And, true, the classic definition of plethora means an overabundance, an excess, of something.

Bryan Garner, still considered the leading authority on American usage, hews to that side of the word, though his latest volume, now at the ripe old age of 5, is starting to age a bit in these digital times when usage changes have gone from glacial to, at least, climate change proportions.*

So posts like TCE's need to acknowledge that maybe some change has crept into the conversation. No less than the Oxford Dictionaries is now suggesting usage has changed.

usage: Strictly, a plethora is not just an abundance of something, it is an excessive amount. However, the new, looser sense is now so dominant that it must be regarded as part of standard English.

We must not become so pedantic that we don't stop and take a deep breath before pulling the trigger.

------
* While Garner says, "Although W11 [Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed 2003)] seems to countenance this meaning, it is unrecorded in the OED and in most other dictionaries. And it represents and unfortunate degeneration of sense."

But things change. Here is the latest entry from the Oxford English Dictionary online (this is the big boy, available only through very expensive subscription, not the slimmer sibling I linked to above):

Usu. with of. Originally in pejorative sense: an excessive supply, an overabundance; an undesirably large quantity. Subsequently, and more usually, in neutral or favourable sense: a very large amount, quantity, or variety. (emphasis mine)

So, yes, the careful writer will take note. But the peevers among us should also.

Otherwise, why not open up the shopworn debate on "decimate" while we're at it?

It's almost always 'rebut,' not 'refute'

The State newspaper in Columbia has suddenly, in recent months, seemed to get tangled up about "rebut" versus "refute." Maybe they don't go over this at the editing hub up north or whatever.

Tonight's entry:

Unless you're taking the PGA's side in this, the word is "rebuts" -- or, even better, "denies," which is the word used in the story's lede.

"Refutes" implies that you've taken sides and decided that one party has essentially proved its argument.

It's not an inconsequential nuance, especially in headline type, for professional writers and editors who are supposed to know better.

AP Style - spell out those state names

I'm not sure why there's all this kerfuffle over AP's directive today that as of May 1 the style is to spell out all state names in text.

It is after all the World Wide Web. We've known it was coming. AP's style keepers first broached this, what, four years ago at the American Copy Editors Society meeting in Philadelphia (to gasps, of course that made them quickly rethink)?

Yeah, it's going to mean reprogramming all those autopilot things we do. But that shouldn't be hard. I mean, really, you think it's easier to remember all those abbreviations -- and then remember not to use the postal codes that surround us -- instead of just spelling out? (OK, you'll have to remember what your elementary school teacher taught you about Mis-sis-sippi, or that it's ConneCticut. But really?)

My students are probably cheering right now.

We live in a digital world -- emphasis on world -- where someone in India can just as easily read our stuff as they can down the street. Just this week, one of my student's stories was published not only in local papers but was picked up on a martial arts publication based (I think) in Hong Kong.

OK, you can stamp your feet, if you want over underway for under way and over allowed for more than. Reasonable people can disagree over the usage/spelling evolution continuum. But whether to abbreviate state names? That's a pure style construct, nothing else. There is no inherent goodness in abbreviating 42 states and D.C. (So why, again, were Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas and Utah the favored children -- or odd man out, depending on your view? There were well-stated reasons, but there was no unalterable truth. It's just a reasoned decision, folks, nothing more, just as this new style change is.)

Yeah, it's still a little convoluted; the AP still says to use the abbreviations in datelines. And I think the guidance to avoid using state abbreviations in headlines just goes against reality in a printed product (the problem with these kinds of changes is that they tend to be broad-brush). But whatever. We can deal with it.

In some ways, I see all the hooha as the result of two things:

• OMG, AP is chipping away again at the sacred texts that allow us journalists, and especially copy editors, to be high priests. Man the bulwarks. Shibboleths alert!
• There is a bit of teaching envy in the halls of academe (why do I have to change this stuff every year for journalism class when the math teacher will always be able to teach 2+2=4?)

Welcome to 2014. If you wanted to be able to teach the same thing year after year, you should have gotten a physics degree (wait, that changes too, but at a relatively glacial pace compared with what the Internet has done to language).

Here's the next thing: We might go to putting the year with all dates. Same reasoning - it can be read around the world (maybe the universe before long) and stories have a long tail.

Now, if the AP will just address its gawdaful cornucopia of number styles, we can all go back to drinking. My suggestion continues to be spell out everything one to nine unless it is preceded by a dollar sign or some other symbol.

Or use all numbers, for all I care. For compactness, that might be the better solution.

I can count the howls now.

---

Here is the AP's style note:

SPELL OUT: The names of the 50 U.S. states should be spelled out when used in the body of a story, whether standing alone or in conjunction with a city, town, village or military base. No state name is necessary if it is the same as the dateline. This also applies to newspapers cited in a story. For example, a story datelined Providence, R.I., would reference the Providence Journal, not the Providence (R.I.) Journal. See datelines.



   EIGHT NOT ABBREVIATED: The names of eight states are never abbreviated in datelines or text: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas and Utah.



   Memory Aid: Spell out the names of the two states that are not part of the contiguous United States and of the continental states that are five letters or fewer.



   IN THE BODY OF STORIES: Except for cities that stand alone in datelines, use the state name in textual material when the city or town is not in the same state as the dateline, or where necessary to avoid confusion: Springfield, Massachusetts, or Springfield, Illinois. Provide a state identification for the city if the story has no dateline, or if the city is not in the same state as the dateline. However, cities that stand alone in datelines may be used alone in stories that have no dateline if no confusion would result.



   ABBREVIATIONS REQUIRED: Use the state abbreviations listed at the end of this section:



   â?"In conjunction with the name of a city, town, village or military base in most datelines. See datelines for examples and exceptions for large cities.



   â?"In lists, agate, tabular material, nonpublishable editor's notes and credit lines.



   â?"In short-form listings of party affiliation: D-Ala., R-Mont. See party affiliation entry for details.



   Following are the state abbreviations, which also appear in the entries for each state (postal code abbreviations in parentheses):



Ala. (AL)    Md. (MD)      N.D. (ND)



Ariz. (AZ)   Mass. (MA)    Okla. (OK)



Ark. (AR)    Mich. (MI)    Ore. (OR)



Calif. (CA)  Minn. (MN)    Pa. (PA)



Colo. (CO)   Miss. (MS)    R.I. (RI)



Conn. (CT)   Mo. (MO)      S.C. (SC)



Del. (DE)    Mont. (MT)    S.D. (SD)



Fla. (FL)    Neb. (NE)     Tenn. (TN)



Ga. (GA)     Nev. (NV)     Vt. (VT)



Ill. (IL)    N.H. (NH)     Va. (VA)



Ind. (IN)    N.J. (NJ)     Wash. (WA)



Kan. (KS)    N.M. (NM)     W.Va. (WV)



Ky. (KY)     N.Y. (NY)     Wis. (WI)



La. (LA)     N.C. (NC)     Wyo. (WY)



   These are the postal code abbreviations for the eight states that are not abbreviated in datelines or text: AK (Alaska), HI (Hawaii), ID (Idaho), IA (Iowa), ME (Maine), OH (Ohio), TX (Texas), UT (Utah). Also: District of Columbia (DC).



   Use the two-letter Postal Service abbreviations only with full addresses, including ZIP code.



   PUNCTUATION: Place one comma between the city and the state name, and another comma after the state name, unless ending a sentence or indicating a dateline: He was traveling from Nashville, Tennessee, to Austin, Texas, en route to his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She said Cook County, Illinois, was Mayor Daley's stronghold.



   HEADLINES: Avoid using state abbreviations in headlines whenever possible.



   MISCELLANEOUS: Use New York state when necessary to distinguish the state from New York City.



   Use state of Washington or Washington state when necessary to distinguish the state from the District of Columbia. (Washington State is the name of a university in the state of Washington.)

AP: Over? More than? No distinction anymore ...

Finally!

AP Style tip: New to the Stylebook: over, as well as more than, is acceptable to indicate greater numerical value. #ACES2014
— AP Stylebook (@APStylebook) March 20, 2014

And for all those having heart attacks on Twitter about it, get over it. It hasn't been an issue on most news desks or for most publications for several years. Feel free to make the distinction if you want -- I do -- just don't mindlessly impose it on others.

That old "affect," "effect" problem again

The folks at Governing mag are pretty smart, but apparently not so much today when it comes to the headline in the morning email about school superintendents and elections.

That should be "affect":

(On the website, the hed now is School superintendents and the messy business of politics)

AP Style - death to euphemisms for death

It's kind of sad, really, that AP had to put out this update to its stylebook this week:

death, die: Don't use euphemisms like passed on or passed away except in a direct quote. 

Maybe we can now work on that phrase that's become trendy among a lot of TV reporters: We reached out to xxxxx for comment ...

I guess "asked" is too complicated.

Because ... just because

Before you go all ballistic over grammar and usage, please remember that language changes -- and that in the Internet age it changes at light speed.

Today's grammar grenade: because as a preposition

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/english-has-a-new-preposition-because-internet/281601/

Usage: Stanch/Staunch

From today's paper:

Some folks who live along Bluff Road are fighting the expansion of industrial land toward Hopkins.
Tuesday, Richland County Council weighs a request to rezone nearly 148 acres from rural to light-industrial use.
Residents say the change would conflict with a long-standing promise by the county to staunch the creep of businesses along the road leading to the Congaree National Park.

The preferred usage still is "stanch" for the verb (and there's no question if you are strictly following AP style -- Stanch is a verb: He stanched the flow of blood. Staunch is an adjective.)

Damage vs. Damages - let's get it right (especially TV anchors)

Dear WLTX, WIS and numerous other TV stations I've heard this on during my travels:

Damages is what you win in court. It is NOT what is done in a fire, flood, etc. (The company won $63,000 in damages in its lawsuit.)

Damage is what happens in those cases. (The fire caused an estimated $63,000 in damage.)

So unlike the WLTX anchor who just -- again -- said a fire caused so-and-so amount in "damages," let's try to get it right and not sound illiterate, OK?

(Don't believe me? Here's another source. You can find many out there of various repute.)

Plural or singular - the fun continues

A bit of a firefight broke out over on the AP Stylebook group on Linked-In when Michael Bowers, an editor in New Jersey, pointed to an entry on his new blog (hey, who can't like a guy who went to IU and lives a couple of towns away from where I grew up).

Unfortunately, a couple of entries earlier, he tried to negotiate the landmine-studded world of singular/plural subject-verb-pronoun agreement. And it brought sometimes fiery blowback to his LinkedIn post, especially to his guidance on these two sentences:

The couple is hoping they can adopt a child.
The family invested all their money in stocks. 

On commenter pointed to the National Geographic style guide on singular and plurals to bolster his point.

Bowers' guidance, to use it/its in those sentences, is still what I'd prefer, but it's becoming less and less mandatory under our increasingly idiomatic language.

(He stumbles, however, when he says that in the sentence Boston won their third straight game today "their" should be changed to "its." While I long ago favored that (and still secretly do), reality is that no less than AP style has now come around to the idea that team names in any form should just be treated as plural, as they almost universally idiomatically are these days.)
 
Idiom/usage very much is at play these days when you talk about what is called "synesis" or "notional concord." I've written about it here before -- and the entire idea of subject/verb agreement still can be quicksand as you can see by picking up any paper or reading any website on almost any day. But to update things, here's what I wrote over at LinkedIn by way of explanation:
 
--------

Michael's example of family is the more preferred one as he structured it - "the family" would tend to take "it," even under synesis or notional concord.

The National Geographic's on the use of the plural pronoun: "My family trust only people they know" - the use of "trust" to stay consistent with the plural sense would be very correct and much more a Br. English construction but less likely in Am. English.*

We use such concordance expressions all the time. Ex: My family is coming in for Thanksgiving. I'm going to make them a turkey. (To use "it" there would be awkward at best.)

The problem with synesis, of course, is that it opens itself to all sorts of passionate arguments like this - my synesis might not be your synesis. So one makes ironclad pronouncements in this area at risk without disclosing the underlying context or reasoning (following AP style or some such).

"Couple" is likewise subject to concordance. An argument can be made that Michael is right - "is" is the preferred usage here because the sense is that they are seeking to adopt together. (Contrast: The couple have been arrested ... (arrested each individually) ... the couple are divorcing (going their separate ways). The couple hopes to win the lottery (assuming they bought that ticket together and plan to share {grin}). Reallity, however, is that "are" has become the predominant form used with the word.

As for "group," the AP's guidance on this ("Takes singular verbs and pronouns: The group is reviewing its position.") is unfortunate because it ignores modern usage and concordance. We tend to use "group" now not to just designate a tightly knit collection operating as a unit but also as a loose collection of people/institutions doing the same thing, but independently. So: "A group of parents have come together to plan a ski trip." (They came together as individual units.) Once the group has come together and decided collectively, however: "The group has decided to go to Aspen."

And then there are those issues with band names and team names (the Utah Jazz, the Stanford Cardinal). Thankfully, most style guides now say just go ahead and use the plural in all cases.

"None" is another fun area. Either "is" or "are" are acceptable, despite what the AP might say ("It usually means no single one. When used in this sense, it always takes singular verbs and pronouns ..."). Actually, for most people these days, it really means "not any," and the plural is just fine. Bottom line: Almost always entirely the writer's or speaker's choice.

Synesis/concordance is so much fun. Bored on a Saturday evening? Find a roomful of journalists, throw in a "singular" noun, a plural verb and a bottle of Jack Daniels and watch the fun begin!

(*The "Englishes" are slowly merging past the point that Shaw once described as "two countries separated by the same language." (The sense has also been ascribed to Wilde and others.) The Internet is facilitating that, and it means we have to think more broadly about these things. I still recoil at the use of "they" to describe institutions - "Walmart said their profit rose ..." but am also realistic enough to expect that will become common idiomatic usage in the next decade.)
 

Corporate grammar follies

It's always interesting to get on the road and see how corporate America can mangle punctuation, usage and grammar in its signs.

A recent road trip to Arkansas to see the grandkids produced its usual bumper crop of grocer's apostrophes, misspellings and funky usage.

But one that especially struck me was at a McDonald's in Olive Branch, Miss.. On both the door and the large sign out front, the signs loudly proclaimed:

We accept competitor's coupons

Uh, can we get a bit more specific there, Mickey D's? What competitor would it be - the Burger King next door? The Zaxby's across the street? The Wendy's down the road?

What the restaurant more likely meant to say was that it accepted competitors' coupons.

Then I got back here and while waiting at the DMV today was watching the ads roll by on the DMV TV network (who knew - you can't get away from it anywhere). One helpfully noted that a local body shop was "besides" a local auto dealer.

Now, you might want to go to the body shop instead of the auto dealer for your repair, but I suspect the shop wanted to say it was beside that auto dealer.

Beside = next to

Besides = in addition to or apart from

Sigh. And a pox on the next business person who, when I say I teach in a journalism school, starts going on about how "kids" can't spell, etc., these days.

(Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera handy for either one.)

Usage: First come, first ?

Having seen this phrase misstated again (today in a registrar's message in a graduation supplement to The Daily Gamecock), I realize it's time for another reminder.

The phrase is first come, first served.

Not first come, first serve.

The "d" at the end is part of it -- as in those who arrive first are served first, not those who arrive first get to serve first.

Edit Fail: Let's 'cache' this error

This blurb from Street Fight Daily today is another case of an error I'm seeing more often. Can you find it (hint - read the post headline):

Under a new partnership being announced with Discover, PayPal is super-sizing the number of merchant locations it will accepted at in the U.S. to more than seven million. Discover may not hold the same cache among consumers as Visa and MasterCard, but it reaches nearly as many merchants, or roughly 95 percent of the two other payment networks combined.

Yeah, there's also the missing "be" in front of "accepted." But the one I had in mind was that the writer used cache when the word needed was cachet. I'm seeing it confused more and more with cache, which is not quite 180 degrees opposite, but close, in that it means to hide something or store it away instead of elevating it in prestige.

(The original AllThingsD article got it right, by the way.)

I think some writers think the word from the French is somehow spelled caché, with the accent acute that tends to be pronounced by English speakers as a long "a." But the word (as does cache) derives from cacher.


So let's be careful out there.

Ditch the cop speak

Why do we as journalists reflexively go into "cop speak" mode? Are we afraid of deviating from the script for some legal reason? Do we think it makes us sound more important or that the cops will see us as more of their buddies?

You routinely read and hear things like "airlifted" when "flown" is just as good and much less pretentious. Or "ejected from the vehicle" when "thrown" works just fine. (And thrown from the "car" or "truck" or "SUV," if you know the details.)

So I found this brief story interesting (I've changed a few small parts to what was in the paper instead of online. The printed version, mercifully, got rid of cliches like "opened fire."):

A man fired shots inside a McDonald’s restaurant along Broad River Road in Columbia late Friday night after getting into an argument with an employee at the drive-through window.

No one was hurt.

According to the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, a man and a woman got into a verbal altercation with an employee while in a car at the restaurant’s drive-through window at about 11:40 p.m. The man and woman then entered the restaurant, the man carrying a gun. They continued the argument, and the man fired a shot into the floor.

The couple left the scene, but deputies found their vehicle several blocks away from the restaurant that’s located at 1729 Broad River Road, according to sheriff’s department spokesman Curtis Wilson. Deputies are seeking two persons of interest.

Why use the nice simple argument in the lede but then switch to the ponderous verbal altercation? I've made a few other changes in the story below as well just to suggest some cleaning up:  

A man fired shots inside a McDonald’s restaurant on Broad River Road in Columbia late Friday night after getting into an argument with an employee at the drive-through window.

No one was hurt.

According to the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, a man and a woman got into a verbal altercation began arguing with an employee while in a car at the restaurant’s drive-through drive-thru window at about 11:40 p.m. The man, with a gun, and woman then entered the restaurant at 1729 Broad River Road. , the man carrying a gun. They continued the argument, and the man fired a shot into the floor.

The couple left, the scene, but deputies found their vehicle car several blocks away from the restaurant, that’s located at 1729 Broad River Road, according to Sheriff’s Department spokesman Curtis Wilson. Deputies are seeking two persons of interest.

Notice also the discrepancy between the lede and the third paragraph. The lede says "shots"; the story later says "shot." It needs to be clarified, but for now I've elected to choose one.

As for the "persons of interest," I've written before how I dislike it. What's wrong with "Deputies have the names of two people they want to talk to"?

(AP style notes - Yes, it's now "drive-thru," much as it pains me. "Sheriff's Department" should be capped in that last sentence under the "Police Department" rule. But feel free to differ on either of those.)