Here We Go Again

tim · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:19 am

With all the problems we have had here in Florida with our elections Tuesday, the inevitable is coming.Soon, somebody somewhere will think it clever to write, "It's deja vu all over again."Anyone want to bet against it?

tim · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:24 am

I should have checked the wire first. From the AP:"Elsewhere, ballots jammed as workers put them through optical scanners and dozens of polls workers didn't show up.'It's deja vu all over again,' said Democratic national Chairman Terry McAuliffe. 'Even before the polls close, we know that election reform in Florida has failed its first test.'"At least it was in a quote. Of course, the AP writer didn't have to use the damn thing.[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Hathcock ]

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:17 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Hathcock:
At least it was in a quote. Of course, the AP writer didn't have to use the damn thing.<hr></blockquote>I disagree. The AP writer did the right thing both by asking McAuliffe for his opinion, and then reporting it.If McAuliffe's response makes him look like a clichÃ©-spouting ass, that's his problem.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 1:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
I disagree. The AP writer did the right thing both by asking McAuliffe for his opinion, and then reporting it.If McAuliffe's response makes him look like a clichÃ©-spouting ass, that's his problem.<hr></blockquote>No. It served no useful purpose to use the clichÃ©; it detracts attention from the issue at hand. "Even before the polls close, we know that election reform in Florida has failed its first test" is all we need.

Guest · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:06 pm

My paper tried something different. Our headline on our Nation/World page, atop mugs of the candidates in the Democratic primary for Florida governor, read, in big loud type: "MANO A RENO: Primary a fight to the finish." I STILL can't believe I got away with that.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 5:28 pm

When you omit the cliche, you do change the tone of the quote. In the original, McAuliffe comes off as slightly flip. In the edited version, he seems nothing but sober. I don't see how the cliche is distracting. It alludes to the 2000 election in a more direct way than the second half of the quote does. Sure, it can be cut without much change in meaning, but I see nothing wrong with leaving it.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 5:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
When you omit the cliche, you do change the tone of the quote. In the original, McAuliffe comes off as slightly flip. In the edited version, he seems nothing but sober. I don't see how the cliche is distracting. It alludes to the 2000 election in a more direct way than the second half of the quote does. Sure, it can be cut without much change in meaning, but I see nothing wrong with leaving it.<hr></blockquote>Oh, shut up, Phil. You're being deliberately provocative!

jmcg · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 6:53 pm

Enough, then, on the lame Yogi McAuliffe
quote. How's Thompsen getting away withthat hed?

jmcg · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 6:54 pm

Oops. Thomsen.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 8:10 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
[QB]I don't see how the cliche is distracting. /QB]<hr></blockquote>For those of you who don't know the gospel on such things (which ADKBrown does; he clearly is just being playful), such phrases are automatically distracting to readers because they call attention to themselves *as cliches,* regardless of their relevance to the subject at hand. The fact that usually they are stretched to fit a given circumstance, resulting in awkward or even invalid metaphor, makes them worse.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 8:51 pm

I'm not sticking up for cliches, but people use them. Quotes should reflect how people speak, not how we think people should speak (unless you write for the New Yorker). I disagree that we should excise every cliche on the ground that all cliches are stupid and meaningless. Use your judgment.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 11, 2002 9:06 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I'm not sticking up for cliches, but people use them. <hr></blockquote>Our concern should be providing information, not reflecting the poor speech habits of the people who give it to us.

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:16 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Our concern should be providing information, not reflecting the poor speech habits of the people who give it to us.<hr></blockquote>Phil, the trouble I have with that argument is that your definition of "poor speech habits" extends beyond the occasional grammatical faux pas. You're calling for what amounts to censorship because what McAuliffe said is a stupid clichÃ©. That approach to writing and editing is, to use another clichÃ©, a slippery slope.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Sep 12, 2002 11:59 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Phil, the trouble I have with that argument is that your definition of "poor speech habits" extends beyond the occasional grammatical faux pas. You're calling for what amounts to censorship because what McAuliffe said is a stupid clichÃ©. That approach to writing and editing is, to use another clichÃ©, a slippery slope.<hr></blockquote>It's hardly "censorship." If we feel obligated to keep banalities in copy for no useful purpose, we might as well be steonographers.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Sep 12, 2002 12:24 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Our concern should be providing information, not reflecting the poor speech habits of the people who give it to us.<hr></blockquote>I understand your point. My point, though, is that a cliche can convey information. Imagine that McAuliffe had been rushing out the door when the reporter asked him about the Florida election. In reply, McAuliffe shouted over his shoulder, "It's deja vu all over again," and then vanished into the night. Would you reject that quote as meaningless? Even if getting McAuliffe's opinion was deemed vital to the story? He's comparing the recent election to the 2000 election, and the obvious inference is that he's upset. I grant that it's not a good quote, but it's not devoid of information.

Testy Copy Editors

Here We Go Again

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links