Lively, vivid language is always welcome, in features or news stories. But slang, colloquialisms and insider jargon are often jarring and inappropriate in straight-news contexts.
Even in features, slang may seem trite or forced rather than fresh and compelling.
As I’ve noted before, these judgments are subjective. But here are a few recent examples that struck me or colleagues as questionable.
•••
The pivot point is the buy-in from auto companies and their vast networks of suppliers, which now not only believe in the technology but also see it as a way to gain a competitive advantage.
This interesting technology story didn’t need to rely on slang or buzzwords — but here were two examples in one clause. There are plenty of straightforward ways to make this point.
•••
But for now, ZMapp may offer the best shot because it consists of proteins called monoclonal antibodies, widely used as drugs in the biotechnology industry, which latch onto the virus and neutralize it.
This informal use of “shot” to mean “chance” or “prospect” seems particularly unfortunate and distracting in a reference to a drug.
•••
A cyberattack this summer on JPMorgan Chase compromised more than 76 million household accounts and seven million small-business accounts, making it among the largest corporate hacksever discovered. …
The new details about the extent of the hack — which began in June but was not discovered until July — sent JPMorgan scrambling for the second time in just three months to contain the fallout.
As the severity of the hack became more clear in recent days and new information was unearthed, some top executives flew back to New York from Naples, Fla., where many had convened for a leadership conference, according to several people briefed on the matter.
The verb “hack” and the noun “hacker” have long been standard. But “hack” as a noun in this sense still smacks of slang or jargon. Later versions of this story used “attack,” “breach,” “intrusion” and other descriptions.
•••
At the very least, it was assumed that the presumed matchup in the final with host Spain would be a dodgy proposition.
Not just informal, according to our preferred dictionary, but “chiefly British.” (Also, the echo of “assumed” and “presumed” is awkward.)
•••
Unpleasant and hard to shift, this is the version that Edmunds.com tested at 4.8 seconds to 60 m.p.h., with a quarter-mile run in 12.8 seconds at 118.4 m.p.h. Still quick, but short of epic.
One might argue that colloquial language is justifiable in the context of a sports-car review. But this use of “epic” is probably already past its expiration date — and that’s a major problem with slang. Efforts to sound current with a newfangled idiom too often miss the mark, alienating old and young readers alike.
•••
Mr. Lehman explained that the museum was about to embark on a major capital campaign drive aimed at beefing up its endowment.
The colloquial expression seems trite and out of place here.
•••
In many ways, education is a lousy business.
Another trite and tired colloquialism.
•••
[Headline] N. Korea Shows at Games in South
Sometimes a tight headline count tempts us to use a slang expression just because it’s short. But such language is even more jarring in big type, especially in a straight-news context, as here, where we used “show” to mean “show up” or “appear.”
•••
[Headline] Vets Face Rising Worry Over Fleas
No, these were not former service members returning infested from some far-off battlefield. And in this case, there was plenty of room in the headline to spell it out: veterinarians.
In a Word
This week’s grab bag of grammar, style and other missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and readers.
•••
Teresa Giudice and her husband, Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice, were sentenced to prison on Thursday in Federal District Court here on conspiracy and bankruptcy fraud charges.
We should avoid this mannerism of providing nicknames in quotation marks. If we thought the nickname was important information, we could have added it later: “Mr. Giudice, known as Joe, …”
•••
Many of the online commenters felt the same way: About 58 percent thought Mr. Robinson should receive jail time, based on a sample of the top 45 reader-recommended comments.
With so small a sample, the percentage gives a false impression of precision. We could have said “most,” or simply provided the raw numbers.
•••
In 2012, for example, a team at the biotech company Amgen announced that they’d analyzed 53 cancer studies and found itcould not replicate 47 of them.
One could probably justify construing “team” as either singular or plural, but not both in the same sentence. (Also, there’s no reason for the contraction.)
•••
The four people, a girlfriend of Thomas E. Duncan, the Liberian who is the first person in the United States to develop symptoms of Ebola, and three of her relatives had been under orders not to leave their home, and Texas officials apologized to them for not moving faster to have the apartment cleaned of potentially infectious materials.
We neglected to close off this appositive with a second comma. But given the complexity of the phrase, dashes would have been better still.
•••
But if a customer detects something suspicious about an email,they should contact the company that supposedly sent it.
A customer isn’t “they.” Rephrase, perhaps using the plural throughout: “But customers who detect something suspicious … should contact.”.
•••
The company makes iPhones, iPads, and hosts through its online stores a wealth of cloud-based software applications.
The elements in the series are not parallel. Make it “makes iPhones and iPads, and hosts …”
•••
Now he had six, and through five innings had allowed only a solo homer by Randal Grichuk. But the seventh inning got away from him in a way he had rarely ever experienced.
“Ever” is not needed or wanted with “rarely.”
•••
As The Post reported on Sunday, it took four days for the Secret Service to finally understand that there was an armed attack, and only after a housekeeper discovered broken glass and chippedcement.
We meant concrete (of which cement is one ingredient).
•••
The article sprung from the reporters’ shared sense that, despite official stories and conventional wisdom, the Fed could have saved Lehman Brothers. …
But for Jim and I, the legal argument seemed too tidy.
Make it “sprang,” not “sprung,” and “for Jim and me.”
•••
The officer spotted two men, who began running when he approached them, Chief Jackson said. The officer chased them, and as he closed in on one of the suspects, Chief Jackson said, the second suspect pulled out a gun and fired at the officer, who was shot in one arm.
The officer said he fired several shots in return, but there was no indication that he hit either of the suspects, Chief Jackson said.
We were not referring to a specific accused person, so there’s no reason for “suspect.” The Times’s stylebook says this:
suspect. Fairness calls for suspect in referring to people accused of crimes; that reflects the presumption of innocence. But when no one has yet been accused,suspect is the wrong word for the person sought or involved. Use robber, rapist or a similarly specific term.
•••
But a player who does a back flip in the end zone and lands on the ground could be penalized.
A reader asks: What if he remains in the air?
•••
In response, Ms. Pierson said that the report was concerningand that she had referred the question to the agency’s internal affairs department. She said the description of the officer’s fear “troubles me now.”
Ugh. Let’s avoid this use of “concerning” as an adjective. This was changed for print to “concerned her.”
•••
Spoiler alert: His color palette, electric reds and midnight blues, comes from Mr. Tait’s collection.
This phrase has become shopworn, especially when used to describe something not remotely likely to spoil an experience for anyone.
•••
[Home page summary] Analysts say Mr. Xi, the Chinese president, cannot back down without appearing weak, and nor is the crisis likely to be resolved without compromise.
“And” and “nor” don’t work together. Perhaps “Mr. Xi cannot back down without appearing weak, but the crisis is not likely to be resolved without compromise.”
