Read it and weep

Editor, The Commercial, I’ve been grumbling about this for at least a decade, but only to myself since so few would even notice or understand.

My journalism career preceded computers in the newsroom. Our product was printed on paper, which meant there were space limitations on how much type would fit on a page, and very strict limitations on how much could fit in a headline.

If the news editor told a reporter he/she was allotted nine inches for a police report, that meant the reporter should condense the information to fit into a nine-inch-long space in one column. If the account exceeded that length, an editor would alter it. Reporters soon learned to expect this.

In our paper, as in most, certain organizations and agencies had to be identified by the full name on first reference in body type, though common, generally accepted abbreviations could be used afterward. Thus, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was written in full on the first reference, then shortened to FBI after that. Common acronyms — scuba, laser — need not be spelled out.

Editors who wrote headlines for these stories had even more space constraints; they had to condense the gist of the story into just a few words.

The dictum for reporters to write tight applied doubly to editors, who routinely chose shorter terms to apply: “cut” instead of “reduce,” “hike” instead of “increase,” and so forth. Since reporters did not work with such severe restraints, they were discouraged from using such “headlinese” terms in body type.

Then along came the internet. The “page” was no longer constrained by the size of a sheet of paper, and a column could run as long as the writer could write. Headlines were still limited to fewer words, more to grab attention without telling the whole story, though word selection was less important. Now, a news story can run the length of a novella, with no worry about the length.

What’s my complaint? It’s the apparent loss of knowledge among reporters, and a presumably diminished vocabulary.

When I worked in a newsroom, a coworker once commented on my use of “50-cent words,” those polysyllabic terms that are within the ken of the listener but seldom used. “Use it or lose it,” I replied.

I guess we lost it. Very seldom do I see “reduced” or “eliminated” any more; now everything gets “cut” or “slashed.” With no physical restraints on length, though, it puzzles me that few reporters even bother to write out “United Nations” and “European Union” nowadays, just going solely with “UN” and “EU” from the start. Ditto NATO.

While reporters now lean toward leaner wording by using acronyms, it appears that some public officials are going in the other direction, with a paragraph or two of a title preceding the name proper, something like Secretary of Higher Education and Secondary Childhood Behavioral Development John Doe. I am reminded of The Three Stooges “Mahah/Aha” routine (itself no doubt lifted from some older Vaudeville routine), where a grand poobah is introduced with a mouthful of honorifics, all gibberish.

Maybe it’s all meant to work out in the long run. Now, if they would only do something about all those danged run-on sentences!

D.H. RIDGWAY PINE BLUFF