People who are in the business of communicating with the public ought, it seems to me, to be able to communicate. They ought to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say.
A recent example from one of the weather forecasters on a local television station. Commenting last night on the unusual 69-degree high for the day, she affirmed that we would not be seeing 69 degrees again. Never? Are we in for perennial winter? What about global warming? Where is Al Gore when we need him?
Surely she meant there were no 69-degree temperatures in the immediate forecast. None in the five- or ten-day forecast. But never?
Now, of course, we are all human and are surely entitled to an occasional misspeak here and there, but I observe little such inaccuracies all the time in the broadcast media. The broadcasters should be somewhat masters of the language—it is their business after all—they are supposed to be professionals—but too often, painfully so at times, they speak without precision, without really saying what they mean, sometimes without being consistent.
Another recent example. A week ago a newscaster was doing a little feature on increasing car thefts in the area. She observed that it didn't really matter what make or model or year of car you happened to own, pretty much all were at risk. And then not more than two or three sentences later, she said that recent-year Hondas were most at risk. The two affirmations didn't seem to match. So, do I need to worry at all about someone breaking into or stealing my eleven-year-old Ford Ranger pickup or my eleven-year-old Ford Windstar minivan? I would not if I were any sort of self-respecting car burglar. Certainly not the Windstar. The Ranger perhaps.
A recent example from one of the weather forecasters on a local television station. Commenting last night on the unusual 69-degree high for the day, she affirmed that we would not be seeing 69 degrees again. Never? Are we in for perennial winter? What about global warming? Where is Al Gore when we need him?
Surely she meant there were no 69-degree temperatures in the immediate forecast. None in the five- or ten-day forecast. But never?
Now, of course, we are all human and are surely entitled to an occasional misspeak here and there, but I observe little such inaccuracies all the time in the broadcast media. The broadcasters should be somewhat masters of the language—it is their business after all—they are supposed to be professionals—but too often, painfully so at times, they speak without precision, without really saying what they mean, sometimes without being consistent.
Another recent example. A week ago a newscaster was doing a little feature on increasing car thefts in the area. She observed that it didn't really matter what make or model or year of car you happened to own, pretty much all were at risk. And then not more than two or three sentences later, she said that recent-year Hondas were most at risk. The two affirmations didn't seem to match. So, do I need to worry at all about someone breaking into or stealing my eleven-year-old Ford Ranger pickup or my eleven-year-old Ford Windstar minivan? I would not if I were any sort of self-respecting car burglar. Certainly not the Windstar. The Ranger perhaps.
Another of my favorites is the misplaced modifier—words or phrases that modify or describe or give meaning to what is being talked about. Yet, if misplaced (and we're not talking here about losing our modifiers but placing them in the wrong part of the sentence, making them seem to modify something other than what they were meant to), they can create quite a different meaning than the one intended. Sometimes the result is humorous. Sometimes confusing. Sometimes misleading.
No comments:
Post a Comment