Segment 48: More questions of style

Readers: In a November 2021 segment, we discussed the concept of “style,” a question not so much of right or wrong, but rather “OK” vs. “better.” It’s a method by which institutions create rules for how to say certain things in a consistent way. We mentioned that we defer to the Associated Press’ “stylebook.” Here are more examples of style questions:

1. The struggling newspaper fired dozens of staffers.

A person let go for cause has been fired. A person let go because of budget cuts or because his/her job was eliminated has been laid off. “Laid off” is traumatic. But it isn't nearly as humiliating, or potentially scandalous, or most importantly, harmful to prospects for future employment, as getting fired. Make sure you're fair to a person by making the distinction.

2. We took a small boat to the cruise ship.

This is correct. Both are boats, but the two terms reflect the difference in size, especially when they are used in the same sentence and the context is obvious.

3. The woman was raped and her sister was sexually assaulted, while the niece was molested.

This gets into some delicate issues. As a rule, don’t say “rape” unless a person actually was penetrated. “Sexually battered” suggests an attack that is sexual and also causes injury. “Molested” implies just groping, which still is a crime, and a serious one in the case of a minor. “Sexually assaulted” is a good general term for a reporter to use if police are vague.

4. The man was extradited from the Indiana state prison back to Chicago to stand trial on the new murder charge, and his alleged accomplice was extradited from Fort Wayne to Indianapolis.

First one right. Second one wrong. Extradition is a formal process to move someone to another state to face criminal charges. It’s not correct when describing transferring people between locations in the same state.

5. Hundreds watched as a set of blasts shook the ground and the old hotel imploded.

An implosion primarily is a specific scientific event, mostly limited to vacuum tubes and unstable stars. Usage has allowed it to mean "to break down or fall apart from within." But the "Horribly Wrong" team says using it to describe a building demolition is just plain inaccurate. What you see when an old building crumbles is the building not imploding in, but rather just falling down. It’s a controlled collapse. Explosives are set off at key points, weakening the structure, and it collapses of its own weight.

Watch this on video! https://youtu.be/VrE6aHhLHqE

Next time: Why do we pick on TV? Well, they just make it too darn easy.

Readers: "Something Went Horribly Wrong," features samples of bad writing we see nearly every day. You can participate! Be our duly deputized “grammar police:” Your motto: “To protect and correct.” Send in your photos of store signs, street signs, newspaper headlines, tweets, and so on. It doesn’t have to be a grammatical error. It can be just what we call “cowardly writing.” Include your name and home town so we properly can credit you. You're free to add a comment, although we reserve the right to edit or omit. Now get out there! Send to Eliot@eliotkleinberg.com

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Do it now! And tell your friends!