EDITOR’S CORNER
Do you ever wonder why people sometimes go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid being simple, concise and direct?
Maybe you would if part of your job was to edit what people write.
I recently read an interview with Tony Clark, head of the Major League Baseball Players Union.
He was asked if the players would go on strike if the owners did not comply with their current demands.
This is his answer:
“To the extent there are challenges to their rights, historically, I would suggest those have manifested themselves in a particular way.”
Translation: “Yes.”
Education writer Liz Willen, in a Washington Post article, said she was covering a conference and actually mildly challenged the group when their absurd language reached a—well you decide.
The large conference was about to split up into small discussion groups and the speaker said their task was to “establish environments to revise cluster models and establish comprehensive assessment systems.”
That means to try and figure out a way to see if they were doing any good.
I think.
Anyway, Ms. Willen said there was some laughter, and the group promised they would do better.
“In five minutes we were talking about increasing human capital and inseparable imperatives,” she said.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say “speaker” up there I meant to say “facilitator.”
Not picking on educators, of course. They aren’t the only ones. Another prime source of “what’d they say?” is the military.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur once mentioned he had ordered his troops to make a “controlled movement in retrograde.”
He didn’t want to use the word “retreat.”
A military investigation once referred to an incident as a “controlled flight into terrain.”
That would be a plane crash to the rest of us.
That is at least understandable. What’s a little less clear is why a ritzy fashion designer would list a part of their latest $2,500 creation as an “intelligent ventilation point.”
That means it has a sleeve.
I hope it has two of them.
But that may be $500 extra.
Big business and municipalities are, of course, rich sources for such jargon.
Some examples:
• Terminological inexactitude—lie.
• Partially proficient—unqualified.
• Senior, seasoned or mature—old.
• Administrative detention—jail.
• Downsizing—“You’re fired.”
• Job seeker—unemployed.
• Negative cash flow—broke.
• Sweat equity—I don’t have the money to invest in a business so I’m faking it by pretending to do a lot of work.
• Due diligence—Contacting their parole officer before signing a contract with them.
• Consultant—Someone to take the blame when things go horribly wrong.
• Smoke and mirrors—Writing a column when you don’t have an idea this week. (See above).
- Log in or Subscribe to post comments.