Abstract #7
The first article I read this week was “Who you callin’ ungrammatical?” from the Boston Globe. I thought this was an interesting article about something that is often debated nowadays – who vs. whom. Though we sometimes stress over it in editing class exercises, in the “real world” does it even matter that much? Turns out it still does. The article points out that even though people have been talking about how “whom” is going away like “thou” and “ye,” it is still used in print more often than we realize. One area of contention the article had, which I agree with, was its usage at the beginning of a sentence (especially that of a headline). It just looks plain weird.
The rules of grammar sometimes change to fit the times and I think it is about time to stop making such a fuss over the who vs. whom issue. Stylebooks and different publications are always going to have a preference on when to use whom, but people are going to get the point of the sentence if you use who. I like the term “hypercorrect” when describing the use of whom in sentences. I don’t think it would be incorrect if it was gradually phased out, yet some people insist on keeping its usage a matter of importance, something I can’t quite understand. I know this might seem lazy on my part, but like the article points out, sometimes even the most skilled linguist would have trouble deciding when to use it. If it is so difficult and complex to deal with, will our readers (besides very nitpicky ones) even care?
The next article I read, “Style Wars in Cyberspace,” from the American Journalism Review describes how copy editors are using blogs to talk about grammar, style and other issues that they have faced in their work. These blogs provide a place where the “whom” issue could be discussed in further detail and help get a better sense of where the tide might be going. I think it is a great idea that copy editors are putting common issues online, similar to the ACES forum. This provides a great outlet for editors to see what else is going on out there and for language enthusiasts to know they are not alone in wanting to spread proper language use. Furthermore, it is a place for writers to look for help in improving their own copy. It also gives copy editors a little recognition for the hard work they do – something often hidden behind the scenes.
Yet another area where editors must be mindful is discussed in the final article I read, “Readers flummoxed by runaway headlines,” from the St. Petersburg Times. The article talks about how headlines can sometimes be undone by their attempt at being clever or catchy. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to write a good headline – you have to worry about being accurate yet intriguing at the same time, all the while adhering to strict length requirements (some of which are ridiculously small). So, I can understand how one might resort to puns or be tempted to be a little sensational when writing headlines, but this can ultimately be counterproductive. If someone reads a story because of a misleading headline, their trust of the paper is going to be diminished. Furthermore, overdoing it with cutesy headlines or those with too many puns can turn readers off from reading a story.
*Case Study
The in-class discussion this past week brought up many good points dealing with diversity and sensitivity – some of which had never really crossed my mind before. Issues such as saying “Merry Christmas” seem simple enough, yet have so much more to them. If you put it, you are going to offend someone. If you don’t, you are going to offend someone. With similar issues, it seems there is no clear way out. We as editors have to use our best judgment and try to please as many people as possible. This is also where an ombudsman/public editor becomes useful.
With more concrete issues, such as race, sexual orientation and gender, the goal is not to please people but to avoid using language that can be construed as being insensitive or offensive. More care needs to be exercised when it comes to situations like this.
As far as the Newsroom Diversity Game is concerned, I found it to be a useful exercise and more difficult than I thought it would be. To me, it shows that I still need to work on my critical thinking skills when it comes to diversity and sensitivity, but also that things like this are always going to be tricky and sometimes there is no clear answer.
The thread I looked up on the ACES Web site dealt with how to identify a transgender victim. In the case posted, police had identified the victim as a man, while neighbors had described the victim as a woman. This brings up an interesting situation we might face with as editors.
In this case, the editor decided to go with the police report and call the victim a “he,” but others on the thread thought that it might be best for those who knew the victim well to decide. Often times, neighbors and friends will better know how to identify someone and one post argued that we should respect that analysis, which I thought was a good point. Someone made the point that we often refer to celebrities by their stage names, even though they are usually not legal changes, and should therefore extend the same policy to transgender people.
Some caution must be exercised, as one poster pointed out, in using family as a source. Often, transsexuals are not very close with their families, who might give an inaccurate description of how the person identified him/herself.
This is definitely an interesting issue to consider and one that must require some care.
Leave a Reply