Taking a flamethrower to "global warming"

[Jim Thomsen]

This CJR story is a good primer on environmental buzzwords that should be avoided in copy — because they've become so cliched that they've lost all real meaning. (Quick: Define "greenhouse gases.")

I loathe the term "carbon footprint," because it says very little by itself. And if it needs to be explained, then the term designed to substitute for the explanation proves to have little value.

Other terms that should be subjected to the "if you can't cogently define it, don't use it" test:

— Biodiesel
— Climate change
— Green
— Organic
— Tipping point (It's a Malcolm Gladwell book. Let's just leave it at that.)
— Clean energy
— Dead zone (it's used a lot here to describe low-oxygen areas in local waters)
— Impervious surfaces
— Watersheds
— Ecosystem
— Emissions

— And for that matter, really ... can you define "environment" without tripping over yourself?


I know we see these in copy every day and probably let or eyes pass over them. But are we tacitly encouraging readers to do the same? My feeling is that we ought to recast or define such terms, even if it takes more space, rrather than just pass along empty terminology.

(Incidentally, one buzzword term that in my opinion works is "fossil fuel." It defines itself quite well.)

Any other irritating, reader-unfriendly examples?

[rich]

Hey, Jim,
Perhaps it would be clever to talk to writers about such troublesome usages. But do editors really want to arrogate the authority of excising words they believe to be clichés when writers use them with absolute confidence?

Richard

[Jim Thomsen]

Rich, I'm talking about kicking these back to reporters, not excising them on our own. But I'm unswayed by the argument of a reporter's "absolute confidence" in those terms. Not good enough. If I as a copy editor think the reader is being deprived of clear information when these terms are substituted, that belief trumps their confidence. That's the way it has to be in a healthy, functioning newsroom. The burden is rightfully placed on the reporters to justify their choices.

[Matthew Crowley]

Jim:

I think one thing that may shape a reporter's choices here is politics. For example, rightly or wrongly, some observers have linked the term "global warming" to the political left. Therefore, he or she may use "climate change" as a way to stay politically neutral and avoid the "liberal media" tag. Not saying this is right or wrong, but just saying it's perhaps why.

As for things like "ecosystem" and "impervious surfaces," I'd guess that the context of the story would make the terms self-evident. "Ecosystem' is in Websters; it's been a standard grade-school science class term as long as I can recall.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt for clichés or that things should explain themselves. But by now I think it's almost vernacular that "green" = "ecologically friendly." And that's trying to keep "ecologically friendly" simple and comprehensible as synonymous with "nonpolluting." Would you prefer "nonpolluting"?

m.c.

[Jim Thomsen]

The idea here is to get the reporters thinking about their word choices, rather than just reaching for the same handful out of habit each time.

[rich]

Hey Jim,

That was a good, strong response.

And it is reassuring that you are not talking about trimming words in a way that a sincere and honest reporter could believe to be arbitrary.

But, whether you are unswayed by the argument of a reporter's "absolute confidence" in those terms or not, I think we agree it is the reporter who must answer for the words he or she uses, despite it being the copy editor's job to prevent pain and suffering wherever possible.

Cliché or not, you know, there isn't a word on your list that cannot be part of a clear expression.

However, I doubt that we disagree on anything here.

Richard