It should go without further statement that tv talking heads – from local to network – are not, as the tv program proves, “Smarter than a fifth grader.”3, 4 Their command of English grammar and their vocabulary often is weaker than a fifth grader’s … at least fifth graders in my day, back when McGuffey Readers 5 were in vogue and Hector was a pup.
Perhaps I am unjust to castigate the talking heads; most probably are able only to stumble through what someone else wrote for them.
My children, two of whom have degrees in English and teaching experience, one on two continents, grew up with a father who is a language curmudgeon; they know that modifying “unique” sends the old man into a tizzy. The Spouse, who can, and does, communicate effectively in four languages, two of which use non-Latin alphabets, has become attuned to English language blunders and, while showing more self-control than her husband, reacts, if not violently, then at least “forcefully.”
The railing at the talking heads and “journalists” has nothing to do with politics, although that subject on occasion raises hackles.
None of us claims to be in the same league as Abba Eban or Hubert Horatio Humphrey Jr. or Wm. Frank Buckley Jr. (Of the three, two bored me with their cadence. Still better than Yitzhak Rabin who almost put me to sleep while I sat on a hard, concrete bench, c 1975.)
Recently I read a comment by Larry Gordon, editor in chief of the 5 Towns Jewish Times, that whatever caught his eye was “"extraordinarily unique".” This from an editor in chief !
He later complained about "this type of exploitation."6 I will concede, grudgingly, that Fowler and his followers approve the use of “kind of,” “type of,” and similar grammatical laziness, even when the sentence would be fine sans the “of” (“this type exploitation”).
Back in the day of newspapers, when space was at a premium, saving three characters here and there made a difference. The longer the piece, the greater the savings.
The same day I read Mr. Gordon’s rant – that I thought worthwhile despite the grammar issues – I read another article, from the same on-line publication, titled Book: Anne Frank may have been betrayed by Jewish collaborator.7
According to a new book by Gerald Kremer, the son of a member of the Dutch resistance, a woman named Ans van Dijk reported the whereabouts of the Frank family to the authorities. After World War II was over, Van Dijk admitted to helping the Nazis capture 145 people, including her own brother. She was executed in 1948.
Read it again. the son of a member of the Dutch resistance, a woman named Ans van Dijk reported
So: son or daughter or mother? Your guess is as good as mine.
The question: What is written in the book? Did the confusion start with the book or with the book reviewer? Finally, don’t on-line journals have editors and proofreaders?
One more from the same on-line publication – a gold mine of questionable “journalism.”
Under a headline reading Novelist blasts 'inmarriage,' 'occupation' at Reform graduation8 I read that novelist Michael Chabon delivered a diatribe against Jewish inmarriage, as well as Israel’s "occupation of the West Bank," in a commencement speech to newly ordained Reform rabbis and master's degree recipients.
I concede I mis-read – as I suspect many others did – “inmarriage” as “intermarriage.” Reading that a Jew, albeit an self-proclaimed atheist with a dislike of obligatory Jewish rituals, is against Jews marrying Jews is not the norm, yet Chabon spoke about how he once wanted his children to marry Jews, but now opposes the idea of Jewish endogamy. Chabon also rants against Israel and almost everything Israeli. A perfect commencement speaker for the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles?
Although we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I will tolerate his – IMO – misguided opinions; however, whoever invented “inmarrage” ought to be condemned to read a never-ending unabridged. Yes, Virginia, I know new words are coined often, but working hard to mislead should be a crime.
“Back in the day” when I wrote headlines for newspapers, the “hed”cq had to fit the space, not always an easy feat. Now, with digital media, headlines rarely are limited. (The headline on this blurb IS restricted to avoid odd looking line breaks. Old habits are hard to shake.)
Sources
1. Red fox (https://www.wildrepublic.com/en/red-fox)
2. Not to be confused with Redd Foxx (https://www.reddfoxx.com/)
3. http://tinyurl.com/nnljxua
4. http://tinyurl.com/yc8luto7
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffey_Readers
6. The Shidduch fraud: http://tinyurl.com/ycnooz9l
7. http://tinyurl.com/ybzyow94
8. http://tinyurl.com/y8te74ra
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
