J Kaufman wrote:
IX. The rules we learn as newbies will stay with us through all our days.
Once taught, never forgotten. Logic, experience, waterboarding torture cannot change what a slotman or city editor or publisher told us in the days of etaion shrdlu. When we see one of those rules violated, in print or on line, we scribble a correction in the margin or blast off an e-mail.
If that's true, it's a bloody shame, because a lot of those blustering old trolls were really nothing more than pathetic buffoons who often didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
J Kaufman wrote:
Quote:
Mr. Edsel interviewed Mr. Faison before his death and tracked down several other former officers who helped recover thousands of paintings and artifacts.
Because you will remember the slot saying, loudly, for your benefit [and for any smirking rimmen who may have forgotten the rule], "Before his death? Take that goddamn phrase out. If he interviewed him AFTER his death, now that would be news."
Surely you're offering that proposed deletion and the rationale behind it as a classic example of the tin-eared, ham-handed, search-and-destroy "editing" paradigm that: a.) holds deeply entrenched sway over the copy desks of America and b.) is in grievous need of being universally unlearned and replaced with fact-based knowledge, useful skills, and common sense.
Your point is, of course, that “before his death†is actually a meaningful time reference in that sentence and that copy editors ought to think like educated readers rather than blindfolded Strunkian false-efficiency robots.
(Next thing you know, the "omit needless words" zealots will demand that we do away with all the game-coverage stories in the sports section and just run the box scores. )
While we’re at it, let’s look at this other hoary bit of copy desk lore:
J Kaufman wrote:
2. "Alleged" never saved a prisoner from the hangman nor a newspaper from a libel suit.
We were all “taught†early in our careers not to call someone an alleged [blank]. The “explanation†usually goes something like this: “See, if you took the word
alleged out of
alleged [blank], you’d be calling the guy a [blank].†To which we should respond: “Well, we’d better make damn sure not to take the word
alleged out then, huh? Just like we're careful not to take the
not out of
not guilty and stuff like that."
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a prominent lawyer who regularly represents a large U.S. newspaper in libel matters. He told me flat-out that the copy desk aversion to using
alleged that way has no basis in legal fact whatsoever, so long as the story establishes that a reputable authority, such as the police or a prosecutor's office, lodged the allegation. The libel lawyer was actually mystified and asked me something like: “If a guy is charged with being a robber, he’s an alleged robber. What’s wrong with that? What, is it bad grammar or something? ’Cause it’s certainly not libelous.â€
Well, OK, might as well address the “dilemma†thing too:
J Kaufman wrote:
1. "Dilemma" means two choices, and only two choices, one of which must be made, both of which are bad choices.
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English wrote:
Since it begins with the Greek di-, meaning “two,†a dilemma is often said to have two horns (like an aggressive animal of some sort), and it still can mean (1) “in argument, a choice between two equally likely alternatives to be used against your opponent,†(2) “any choice between two equally unpleasant alternative actions,†(3) “a choice between one pleasant and one unpleasant option,†and (4) “the choice between any two alternatives.†Thanks to generalization, however, it is also Standard meaning “any serious problem.â€
The American Heritage Book of English Usage wrote:
In its main sense dilemma refers to a situation in which a choice must be made between alternative courses of action or argument. Although there is plenty of evidence that attests to widespread use of the term meaning simply “a problem†or “a predicament†and involving no issue of choice, the Usage Panel doesn’t support this practice. Seventy-four percent of the panel rejects the sentence Juvenile drug abuse is the great dilemma of the 1980s.
It is sometimes claimed that because the di- in dilemma comes from the Greek prefix meaning “two,†the word should be used only when exactly two choices are involved. But 64 percent of the Usage Panel accepts its use for choices among three or more options in the example Ph.D. students who haven’t completed their dissertations by the time their fellowships expire face a difficult dilemma: whether to take out loans to support themselves, to try to work part-time at both a job and their research, or to give up on the degree entirely.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary wrote:
1: an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives against an opponent
2 a: a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice <faces this dilemma: raise interest rates and slow the economy or lower them and risk serious inflation> b: a situation involving such a choice <here am I brought to a very pretty dilemma; I must commit murder or commit matrimony -- George Farquhar>; broadly : PREDICAMENT <lords and bailiffs were in a terrible dilemma -- G. M. Trevelyan>
3 a: a problem involving a difficult choice <the dilemma of "liberty versus order" -- J. M. Burns> b: a difficult or persistent problem <unemployment...the great central dilemma of our advancing technology -- August Heckscher>
usage
Although some commentators insist that dilemma be restricted to instances in which the alternatives to be chosen are equally unsatisfactory, their concern is misplaced; the unsatisfactoriness of the options is usually a matter of how the author presents them. What is distressing or painful about a dilemma is having to make a choice one does not want to make. ...
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
1841–44 Emerson Ess., Experience Wks. (Bohn) I. 189
...In the dilemma of a swimmer among drowning men, who all catch at him.
(If we’re going to reject the heretical notion that English evolves over time, then we’d better go ahead and ban the usage of
dilemma to describe anything other than an argument technique.)
To summarize, the three chestnuts of newspaper stylebook tradition that J Kaufman listed for our consideration are batting about 0-for-3 here in the reality department, with some degree of hope remaining for partial credit on the
dilemma thing and a rueful acknowledgment that many editors do, for some reason, have the discretionary authority to make baseless changes in copy for no real purpose other than boisterously drawing attention to themselves and trying to justify their continued existence on the payroll.
Geez, we blew the English portion of the exam, but don't worry, we'll do better on the math part -- when we construct a rigorous and irrefutable proof that (1/x) = (1/x)^y for all x>1, y>1.
------------------
I'll tell you something else: Most of the so-called "canon" listed in this thread provides fine ammunition for the decision makers in this industry who already think copy editors are, on balance, not only a waste of money but in fact counterproductive to the goal of good writing and good journalism. And that's not a desirable sentiment to be encouraging in these days of industry-wide payroll slashing and transition to new media.
-----------------
Heck, this post almost sounds like a parting manifesto. I'll be surprised if it doesn't get surreptitiously deleted or "edited," but for now at least, there it is.