Mind your language
Language is a tool of
communication.But most of us tend to flaunt our vocabulary as a prized
possession. In many cases we go for clumsy sentences, cliche and jargon which
make our writings and other content expressions weak. This may sound simple, but
this is probably the most difficult task we journalists face. We work against
time. We have daily challenge of meeting deadlines. Competition stress drives
us to short cuts like cut-paste.
If you want
to be understood, if you want your ideas to spread, using effective language
must be your top priority.
In the modern world this is hardly
ever the case. In many instances, imprecise language is used intentionally to
avoid taking a position and offending various demographics. No wonder it's hard
to make sense of anything!
This is not a recent problem, and as
George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay, Politics
and the English Language, the condition is curable. Try these 5 Rules of
Orwell.
1. Never
use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing
in print.
This sounds easy, but in practice is
incredibly difficult. Phrases such as toe the
line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, an axe to grind, Achilles'
heel, swan song, and hotbed come to mind
quickly and feel comforting and melodic.
For this exact reason they must be
avoided. Common phrases have become so comfortable that they create no emotional
response. Take the time to invent fresh, powerful images.
What does expressions like inclusive
growth or HDI mean. They just mean benefit of development to all. It's so
simple.
2. Never
use a long word where a short one will do.
Long words don't make you sound
intelligent unless used skillfully. In the wrong situation they'll have the
opposite effect, making you sound pretentious and arrogant. They're also less
likely to be understood and more awkward to read. Faulkner criticised Hemingway
for his limited word choice. Hemingway said, Poor Faulkner. Does he really think
big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I
know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those
are the ones I use.
3. If it
is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Great literature is simply language
charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree. Accordingly, any words that
don't contribute meaning to a passage dilute its power. Less is always better.
Always.
4. Never
use the passive where you can use the active.
This one is frequently broken, probably
because many people don't know the difference between active and passive . Here
is an example that makes it clear:
The man was bitten by the dog.
(passive)
The dog bit the man. (active).
The active is better because it's
shorter and more forceful.
5. Never
use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think
of its equivalent in your language.
This is tricky because writing now a
days can be highly technical. If possible, remain accessible to the average
reader. If your audience is highly specialized this is a judgment call. You
don't want to drag on with unnecessary explanation, but try to help people
understand what you're writing about. You want your ideas to spread right?
6.
Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.
This bonus rule is a catch all. Above
all, be sure to use common sense.
These rules are easy to memorize but
difficult to apply. The key is effort. Good writing matters, probably more than
we think.
I hope you find these rules helpful
including my bonus rule and through their application we're able to understand
each other a little bit better. If you enjoyed this post, be sure to read Orwells original essay. It contains many helpful examples and is, of course, a
pleasure to read.
Disastrous railway disaster
reporting
Last month, 16 persons lost lives when
they were run over by the Kutch Express near Surat. No doubt, their death was
their creation. But the reporting of the tragedy of such a scale was a telling
evidence of state of affairs in the media. The driver and the Assistant driver
of the train were suspended on the ground that they did not inform the
authorities about the incident when they left for home at Surat. I read that the
train was at 110kmph. I also read in a report that the lights of the engine
provided vision for 500 mts only.
Accident took place around 10.30 in
the night.Reporters had all the time till next day evening to dig out good
stories. For that they could have got details from Surat itself.
No doubt, we have very high speed
trains. Do they run at very high speed all the time? What about sharp turns and
bridges? Is there any change in the speed?
Did the driver try to warn people
moving on the bridge? What is the safe distance for applying emergency brakes?
The accident took place on a bridge, do we have police at the bridges as they
are soft targets of terrorists?
To what distance a driver can see?
Friends, railways take special care to ensure proper vision of drivers and
guards of trains. Extra care is taken about the staff of important trains.
The story raises some very vital
questions about the working of railways. Any journalist with average background
could have made national story if he had just moved round on the Surat station
and the accident site keeping his eyes and ears open.
Lalu Prasad announced compensation of
Rs five lakh after several days. Does it not provide some masalaa for edit?
Friends reporting of railways is not
just about black marketing of railway tickets or Lalu's announcements. With the
movement and speed of trains increasing, passenger safety is becoming a complex
subject. It is worth specialisation.