Stylebook entries

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu May 23, 2002 8:41 pm

Our stylebooks should pay more attention to the euphemisms we encounter. Here's an entry that should be in every stylebook, updated for the post-9/11 world by an esteemed colleague:WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONAvoid this term that is meant to single out the bad guys and “rogue” nations and conveniently ignores the most imposing arsenal of weapons, which belongs to the United States. Usually the writer is referring to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In every instance, identify the specific type of weapon in question, or just list all three, if necessary. It takes up about the same amount of space.***Otherwise, my colleague questions, "Is an airliner now considered a 'weapon of mass destruction'”?

tim · **Posted:** Thu May 23, 2002 8:56 pm

Speaking of stylebooks.The Associated Press stylebook has an interesting entry under Arabic names.It says, "The Arabic word for son (ibn or bin depending on personal preference and the nation) is sometimes part of a name (Rashid bin Humaid). On second reference, use only the final word in the name: Humaid."Perhaps they are out there, but I am unaware of any paper that follows this style. Nor does the AP, at least when it comes to Osama bin Laden.I am not advocating such usage, just pointing out an oddity. Don't many nationalities and languages have similarities? ("O'" and "Mc" prefixes and "ikov" suffix all mean "son of" do they not?)

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri May 24, 2002 1:44 am

***Apparently consistency is difficult. One day, three ways:*** He recommended that the bureau interview hundreds, if not thousands, of Middle Eastern flight school students to see if Mr. Laden's followers were training here. (New York Times, 5/23/02)Would the White House hurt the chances of snaring Mr. bin Laden for the sake of halting anti-India attacks in Kashmir? (New York Times, 5/23/02)The Security Council resolution obliges all 189 United Nations members to freeze financial assets and impose arms embargoes and travel bans on individuals and groups associated with bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (New York Times, 5/23/02)

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue May 28, 2002 4:53 pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters)-The death of Chandra Levy, the intern romantically linked to a U.S. congressman, was formally ruled a murder Tuesday, but authorities may never know how she died, the D.C. medical examiner said.FORMALLYThis word is almost never needed when reporting on actions such as rulings, the effective date of laws, meetings between world leaders, etc. A good rule of thumb: Drop the word unless the activity described involves tuxedos and black evening gowns.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue May 28, 2002 8:41 pm

GROUND ZEROAvoid the use of this term, especially in reference to the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001. "Ground zero" has a long history as a clichÃ© but was occasionally useful in its original sense, meaning the point at which a nuclear explosion is triggered. To apply the term to the World Trade Center is to be needlessly vague about the nature of the attack. It also makes the term useless in its original sense, particularly in reference to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Ngasaki, Japan, in 1945. ***Alas, a newspaper with which I am associated has added to its stylebook Ground Zero," uppercase "G," uppercase "Z," as the term for the World Trade Center site.***

johnr1418 · **Posted:** Wed May 29, 2002 6:55 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Our stylebooks should pay more attention to the euphemisms we encounter. Here's an entry that should be in every stylebook, updated for the post-9/11 world by an esteemed colleague:WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONAvoid this term that is meant to single out the bad guys and “rogue” nations and conveniently ignores the most imposing arsenal of weapons, which belongs to the United States. Usually the writer is referring to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In every instance, identify the specific type of weapon in question, or just list all three, if necessary. It takes up about the same amount of space.***Otherwise, my colleague questions, "Is an airliner now considered a 'weapon of mass destruction'”?<hr></blockquote>

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu May 30, 2002 6:50 pm

POPULAR CULTURE REFERENCES Let readers draw parallels to popular culture on their own. For example: If you're writing about an innovative handheld computer, there is no need to compare it to a fictional device used by characters in a television show. If you're writing about efforts to manufacture spider-silk, you needn't mention "Spider-Man." Such gratuitous references demean the subject matter and insult the reader's intelligence.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Fri Jun 07, 2002 1:12 am

I think the Post make such a comparison when covering the story on goats being used to manufacture spider silk. It seemed a little too "look, we know that a movie just came out."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Jun 07, 2002 1:18 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Pete Hahnloser:
I think the Post make such a comparison when covering the story on goats being used to manufacture spider silk. It seemed a little too "look, we know that a movie just came out."<hr></blockquote>Really? What a coincidence!

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:22 pm

Fri Jun 14, 2:39 PM ET - (Reuters)
BEVERLY HILLS -- Actress Winona Ryder was formally arraigned in court on Friday on charges of shoplifting thousands of dollars worth of designer clothes and accessories from a posh Beverly Hills store. *** Maybe at her hearing Ms. Ryder wore some of the clothes she allegedly stole. ***

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:27 pm

Since she was "formally arraigned," I assume she was wearing a gown.

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Jul 15, 2002 2:25 pm

Getting back to the term "weapons of mass destruction" ... I wonder if they'll have to revise that once some anti-Catholic terrorist group comes up with a missile designed to seek out and destroy Sunday church services?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:18 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
Getting back to the term "weapons of mass destruction" ... I wonder if they'll have to revise that once some anti-Catholic terrorist group comes up with a missile designed to seek out and destroy Sunday church services?<hr></blockquote>Any more of that, pal, and you're out of here!

Testy Copy Editors

Stylebook entries

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links