Newspeak

We're all sorry to see newspapers leave the scene, even as we admire and hope that journalism flourishes in the future toward which we hurtle.

I am moved to write this entry by one of those odd eddies that a venerable profession can find itself in. The Associated Press, clearly one of the leading journalism providers of our time, appears to be systematic in its misuse of the language.

First, the New York Times decided in the 1960s that "people" meant only what Chairman Mao said it meant--the people of a country. They invented "persons" to mean more than one person. This annoying decree has thankfully faded over the decades, but now we have other assaults.

"Three troops were killed in Iraq." A troop is a group of soldiers (or Boy Scouts) according to Webster's. Troop is not a synonym for soldier. In fact, in the U. S. Army, a troop refers to 70 to 200 persons...uh, people. "Two troops were attacked today, but fortunately only one troop died." "Soldier, pick up that troop's helmet, will you?"

The AP Stylebook says "when [troops] appears with a large number, it is understood to mean individuals: There were an estimated 150,000 troops in Iraq. But not: Three troops were injured." So, for you keeping score at home, that's Stylebook 1, AP usage 0.

"The car bomb in Peshawar killed 105, making it the deadliest attack since 2007." An attack that kills someone is a deadly attack. One attack cannot be deadlier than another, because a person cannot be deader than another. We're told, likewise, that a day can be the deadliest in memory. It can't.

As journalism leaves newspapers like a spirit floating skyward from a corpse, I hope the lack of central office dicta will spare us from this irrational newspeak. There will be ignorant abuse of language as the profession democratizes, of course, but somehow I find that preferable.