Wreckage vs. debris

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:56 pm

From a note from a reporter to people working on the space shuttle story: "A safety board friend called to ask why ... papers use the word "debris" for what's left of the shuttle. The board always uses "wreckage." Debris sounds like useless junk, he said. For investigators, it's a treasure trove and worth more than such a dismissive term."

Guest · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:01 pm

According to my Webster's New World Dictionary:Debris: 1. Rough, broken bits and pieces of stone, wood, glass, etc., as after destruction.I don't see the problem. Methinks yer reporter is wound a wee bit too tight.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

What the hell is a safety board guy doing with enough time to get pissy about what word the papers use to describe the pieces anyway? I know they're people too and all, but I would think they've got far better things to do.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:33 pm

The reporter was just passing the message, as was I.It is worth remembering that words have nuances that are not always described in dictionaries, which, of course, are the penultimate refuge of scoundrels.

Guest · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:43 pm

The problem is that the interpretation of nuance is a subjective and individual pursuit, and you'll rarely get any intelligent group of people to agree on which terms are loaded or slanted in certain ways, and which aren't. If that's true, and if we should only use dictionaries as a late resort, then it seems to me that you're saying that we should apply subjective judgment to most everything we do -- when it's clearly been established here that most copy editors (here at least) are most comfortable drawing between some deeply engraved lines based in long-established rules -- i.e., Strunk and White, various stylebooks, dictionaries, thesauruses, etc. (for what I think are often good reasons). I don't believe in hewing strictly to any style or guide, either, at the expense of any common-sense critical personal judgment ... but to endorse a more free-form approach to deciding what words mean in a common or popular connotative form seems to me to be a blueprint for lingusitic chaos in print.That being said, I asked around my newsroom, and nobody here thinks "debris" has a overtly "junk" connotation. We'll keep using it.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:03 pm

I do not endorse "wreckage" at the expense of "debris" or vice versa. I found it interesting that plane-wreck specialists saw a difference. As far as being "subjective" goes: Informed subjectivity should be the goal of any editor. More than one editing manual I've seen warns editors not to substitute their judgment for that of writers. Hogwash. If I don't substitute my judgment for poor judgment when it's necessary, I'm not doing my job. None of this is news to this board.

tim · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
The reporter was just passing the message, as was I.It is worth remembering that words have nuances that are not always described in dictionaries, which, of course, are the penultimate refuge of scoundrels.<hr></blockquote>Please do tell, what is the ultimate refuge?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:48 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Hathcock:
Please do tell, what is the ultimate refuge?<hr></blockquote>"Patriotism," of course.

catwoman · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:57 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
The reporter was just passing the message, as was I.It is worth remembering that words have nuances that are not always described in dictionaries, which, of course, are the penultimate refuge of scoundrels.<hr></blockquote>perhaps using 'wreckage' will free up the word debris so it can in turn be used to take the load off the overworked 'makeshift memorial.'normally, i'm delighted to be in this business and particularly proud of my employer, but there was stupid crap everywhere i looked today. including a correction to let readers know that on jan. 27 we meant to say that a "couple hundred pounds of confetti"--NOT graffiti--rained down on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. we followed up on page 19 with 12 inches about a trial over a fatal but nonetheless out-of-town love triangle. what was the news angle? was it the first time a woman had killed her husband with an SUV? at least, in the out-of-town house-fire photo next to it, we don't have investigators sifting through debris somewhere in washington state. instead we have information about the unidentified family's dog, which the "home's owner said ... likely died." and which lived at least 4 states away from our circulation area.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:25 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
"Patriotism," of course.<hr></blockquote>I thought you were going to say a thesaurus.

pzicari · **Posted:** Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:55 am

Oh, merciful heavens, a couple of hundred pounds of graffiti? Thanks for the best chuckle of the night!My boss collected the following, transcribed from a call-in-your-beef tape:"About this new law requirÂ´
ing students to sign up for
the draft and the recruiters
to call senior and junior
high school kids, next thing
you know, there will be
black shirts with SWAT stickers and an armed band
marching on Washington." .. we're pretty sure he meant "swastikas" and "armbands." But you never know...

Testy Copy Editors

Wreckage vs. debris

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links