Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Are the Worst Journalism Cliches?
Earlier this week at the Washington Post, Carlos Lozada compiled a list of the 150 worst journalistic cliches. As a writer who’s not immune to falling prey to a few of these tics, I winced a few times. As an editor who stalks and kills many of these formulations in the wild, however, I was more often drunk with delight. Here are a few examples of instances where I think the Post’s contempt is deserved:
- “Needless to Say”— This is a phrase that announces its own irrelevance. Taken literally, the words are committing suicide. I look forward to the day when word processors are programmed to automatically delete it
- “Broken System” — Worth banning if only to shut Norm Ornstein up for awhile. Seriously, can we get a blanket prohibition on thumb-sucking opinion pieces that elide the distinction between “Washington doesn’t work” and “Washington doesn’t work the way I want it to”?
- “Much Ballyhooed” — I’m more forgiving that most of writing-specific diction. I’d never write a column the same way I’d write a speech. Different styles are appropriate for different media. There’s only so much elasticity permitted, however. “Ballyhoo” takes it too far. Never employ vocabulary that could plausibly have been originated by Dr. Seuss.
- “Twitterati’ — Italian for “writers who are falling behind on their deadlines.”
- “The Narrative” (unless referring to a style of writing) — First, it’s just an incredibly sterile phrase. More importantly, though, it’s gateway to a sort of meta-commentary. I never trusts journalists who talk about “the narrative” as if it’s set in stone. They have the power to change it. Give me the facts and I’ll make sense of them for myself.
As with all such exercises, a lot of these judgments are subjective. The Post flags “inflection point,” for example, which I regard as a phrase with no ready substitute, even if it’s a bit overused.
Likewise, I find the criticism of “begs the question” excessively pedantic. Yes, it has a specific meaning in a philosophical context, but the more common usage is so deeply embedded into the way we talk that it’s probably not worth resisting. Will the world really be that much better a place if everyone says “invites the question” instead?
How about you? What are some of your least favorite journalistic cliches? And are there items on Lozada’s list that you’d likewise defend from attack?
Published in General
I’m no expert, but from a quick internet search, it appears that casualty and casual come from different words. But both are based on latin words having to do with chance.
Somethingsomething…ON STEROIDS!
This, you can’t get away from easily, so it bothers me less than it does you. They have to say where the guy is from. Plus, this also gave birth to our modern-day Everyman, Area Man.
X does not a Y make!
Thanks for doing my homework for me. :)
“Some say…” Translation: I, journalist say…
“The Republicans’ actions raised questions about …” Translation: I, journalist question it.
This makes sense. The Spanish word for coincidence is casualidad. The Spanish –idad ending is basically equivalent to English -ity (reality = realidad, responsibility = responsibilidad, Christmas/Nativity = Navidad, unity = unidad, security = seguridad).
So in Spanish, a coincidence is a “casuality”.
Wow I read the entire list and had a hard time choosing. I could have chose all 150 cliches as detestable. Shows you how much I hate journalism. I narrowed it down the six that makes me most cringe:
The narrative
At a crossroads
Last-ditch effort
Plenty of blame to go around
The devil is in the details
Growing body of evidence
I would say “The devil is in the details” is the worst offender. The devil is always in the details. What do they think, details are not important?
Now that I’ve read all the comments, some of you guys have added some good ones. It’s amazing how endless the journalistic list of cliches can be.
Boots on the ground is particularly annoying. What an idiotic euphemism, as if the rest of the soldier is not on the ground too. Maybe next time we ought to parachute the entire inventory of a shoe store instead of sending in soldiers.
I always picture a weary traveler plodding to the top of a high mountain, kneeling before an Olympian God, explaining what he has done, and then asking, “O Merciful God of History, am I on the right or wrong side?”
The God of History answers, “Come back in about fifty years and I’ll have an answer for you.”
Historical judgment requires a lot of perspective, something we lack while it’s happening.
Left-wing journalists always like to refer to what “activists” say about things. To them, “activists” are exalted thinkers and allies to the cause, whose mere presence certifies sanctity to whatever left-wing drivel these so-called activists, and journalists, want to see enacted or commanded. Conservatives to journalists are never “activists” but are merely recalcitrant resisters to necessary progress.
“Strange new respect” — which means someone on our side is about to betray us.
Nothing wrong with “boots on the ground” and “blood and treasure”. But they are expressions to be used by people with skin in the game* – soldiers. When a politician or bureaucrat or (shudder) journalist uses either as a kind of insider hip-speak, it’s fingernails on the blackboard. F***ing shut up!
*”Skin in the game” (other than when used by Rob Long) is also among the worst offenders. J****, stop it.
Worst Broadcast Journalism Cliche:
The broadcast journalist who delivers all of her copy in perfect, unaccented English, unless the copy contains Spanish language words. Suddenly, she feels compelled to speak each Spanish word in the accent she used when she auditioned for Maria in her high school production of West Side Story.
A burning building is always “a spectacular fire.” Funny, the building’s owner and residents don’t feel the same way (yes, I know the literal meaning of spectacular; the persistent overuse is the point).
A government job appointment is always a “post.” I don’t know anyone outside the news media who always uses that word.
One does not win the nomination in a primary; one “gets the nod.” They even talk about how many “nods” the Democrats got vs. the Republicans. Funny, I don’t see anyone nodding; I thought you had to win an election.
Yeah! Steroids add lean mass and increase performance. That’s not the context it is usually used.