writing

Yahoo News calls its readers “absolute morons”

This entry was posted in Writer ethics Writing and tagged fake news news SanityProject writing on by

I don’t know whether headline writing is a low-paying job that attracts incompetent people or they’re under time pressure and can’t do a decent job. Or perhaps their bosses tell them, “Never mind respect for the reader, write clickbait!” A headline that I just saw on Yahoo News tops them all: “No, Donald Trump Isn’t Wading Through Hurricane Floodwaters, You Absolute Morons.” I don’t know why Yahoo decided it was a good idea to grossly insult all its readers, but I won’t reward them with a link. You know the search-engine routine. Here’s a screenshot, in case the people responsible have been sacked by the time you read this.
(more…)

Has the meaning of “refute” changed?

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language usage vocabulary writing on by

This week I came upon a bizarre claim in an Associated Press article: “The federal law that President Joe Biden signed at the end of 2021 followed allegations of human rights abuses by Beijing against members of the ethnic Uyghur group and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has refuted the claims as lies and defended its practice and policy in Xinjiang as fighting terror and ensuring stability.” If AP was using the established meaning of “refute,” it was claiming that these allegations were lies and China had proven they were. The article didn’t say what this proof was.

However, it was called to my attention that some dictionaries give a new, second meaning for “refute.” Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: (1) to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. (2) to deny the truth or accuracy of. Dictionary.com, on the other hand, gives two definitions that both entail proof: (1) to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. (2) to prove (a person) to be in error.
(more…)

AI Panic and NaNoWriMo

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged AI computers nanowrimo software writing on by

This has been the year of panic over artificial intelligence. It will take over our jobs! It will replace journalism, fiction writing, and maybe even songwriting! This panic has shown up in reactions to a measured statement by the board of National Novel Writing Month, aka NaNoWriMo. Three members of the board have resigned over the statement.

It begins: “NaNoWriMo does not explicitly support any specific approach to writing, nor does it explicitly condemn any approach, including the use of AI.” That’s not a very tactful way to start, I’ll grant; it could easily be read as endorsing the use of a computer to write your work for you. A clarification was added after the first paragraph, saying, “We also want to make clear that AI is a large umbrella technology and that the size and complexity of that category (which includes both non-generative and generative AI, among other uses) contributes to our belief that it is simply too big to categorically endorse or not endorse.”
(more…)

There’s nothing wrong with these expressions

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged usage vocabulary writing on by

I’ve written a lot of posts on the misuse of words and expressions. For balance, I should mention some that pedants object to, but I don’t. (“Pedant” is defined as someone who objects to usages I don’t object to.)

“I could care less.” The pedant says this should be “I couldn’t care less.” Don’t you understand irony? This is always uttered in a sarcastic tone, and it means something like “I could care less — if I really tried hard.” Do you also object to saying “Big deal!” to dismiss something unimportant?
(more…)

Britannica blunders 1

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language Shakespeare usage vocabulary writing on by

The once-respected name of Britannica has really sunk. In an article on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, they misquote and misinterpret the most famous line of the play, while thinking they’re correcting a misconception.

The most famous line of the play, “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”, is often misinterpreted. The archaic word wherefore does not mean “where”, but “why”, rendering the modern English translation as “Why are you, Romeo?”

That’s not what the line is! It’s “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” with no comma. Juliet isn’t asking why Romeo exists. She’s asking why he’s Romeo — meaning why he is Romeo Montague, a member of an enemy family. The next lines make this clearer: “Deny thy father and refuse thy name, Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”
(more…)