Englishforjournalistsblog.files.wordpress.com



200 journalism cliches — and countingIdentifying journalistic cliches has become a favorite Washington parlor game. But might it not also open a rare window onto the struggles of writers and editors trying to think outside the box?Over the past few years, some colleagues at The Washington Post and I have played our own parlor game, assembling a list of verbal crutches, stock phrases, filler words, cliches and perpetually misused expressions that we should avoid in The Post’s Sunday Outlook section — or at least think hard about before using. The initial list received?some attention?last year on the media blog Romenesko, triggering many more nominations.Below is the latest, expanded version, which reached 200 entries on July 10, 2014. Feel free to suggest new entries (or arguments for why something should be taken off the list) in the comments section, or tweet at us:@CarlosLozadaWP?or??@PostOutlook. We’ll keep adding to it.And believe me — this is not your father’s list of journalism cliches.The Outlook List of Things We Do Not SayAt first glance (or worse, “at first blush”)As a nation (or worse, “as a society”)Upon deeper reflection (why not reflect deeply from the start?)Observers (unless referring to people actually sitting around watching something)[Person] is not alone (from anecdote to generalization, we get it)And [someone/something] is no exceptionPundits sayCritics say (or “critics are quick to point out”)The American people (unless in a quote)The narrative (unless referring to a style of writing)Probe (an uncomfortable substitute for “investigation”)Opens/offers a rare window (unless it is a real window that is in fact unusual)Begs the question (unless used properly – and so rarely used properly that it’s not worth the trouble)Be that as it mayIf you will (actually, I won’t)A cautionary taleCautiously optimistic (h/t?@daviduberti)Needless to say (then don’t say it)Suffice it to say (if it suffices, then just say it)This is not your father’s [anything][Anything] 2.0 (or 3.0, or 4.0…)At a crossroads (unless referring to an actual intersection)The powers that beOutside the box (describes creative thinking — with a cliche)A favorite Washington parlor gameDon’t get me wrongMake no mistakeYes, Virginia, there is a [something]Christmas came early for [someone]Chock full (“full” is just fine by itself)Last-ditch effort (unless ditch-digging is involved)Midwife (as a verb, unless involving childbirth)Cue the [something]Call it [something]Imagine (as the first word in your lede)Time will tell if [something]What a difference [a time period] makes (h/t?@jasondhorowitz)Sigh of relief (h/t @geneweingarten)The Washington Post?is an American?daily newspaper. It is the most widely circulated?newspaper?published in?Washington, D.C., and was founded in 1877, making it the area's oldest extant newspaper.Located in the capital city of the United States, the newspaper has a particular emphasis on national politics. Daily editions are printed for the?District of Columbia,?Maryland?and?Virginia. The newspaper is published as a?broadsheet, with photographs printed both in color and in black and white.The newspaper has won?47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate?Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever given to a single newspaper in one year.[5]?Post?journalists have also received 18? HYPERLINK "" \o "Nieman Fellowship" Nieman Fellowships?and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards. In the early 1970s, in the best-known episode in?Post?history, reporters?Bob Woodwardand?Carl Bernstein?led the American press's investigation into what became known as the?Watergate scandal; reporting in the newspaper greatly contributed to the resignation of President?Richard Nixon. In years since, its investigations have led to increased review of the?Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[6]In 2013, the newspaper was purchased by?Jeff Bezos?for $250 million in cash.[1][2][7]?The newspaper is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, a?holding company?Bezos created for the acquisition.[8]The?Los Angeles Times, commonly referred to as the?Times, is a daily?newspaper?published in?Los Angeles, California, since 1881. It was the largest metropolitan newspaper in circulation in the United States in 2008 and the fourth most widely distributed newspaper in the country.[3]?In 2000, the?Tribune Company, parent company of the?Chicago Tribune?and local television stationKTLA, purchased the?Los Angeles Times.[4]?It is currently owned by? HYPERLINK "" \o "Tribune Publishing" Tribune Publishing.The?Times?was beset in the first decade of the 21st century by a change in ownership, a bankruptcy, a rapid succession of editors, reductions in staff, decreases in paid circulation and the need to increase its Web presence.In 2000, the?Tribune Company?acquired the?Times, placing the paper in co-ownership with then-WB (now?CW)-affiliated?KTLA, which Tribune acquired in 1985.[4]For two days in 2005, the?Times?experimented with? HYPERLINK "" \o "Wikitorial" Wikitorial, the first?Wiki?by a major news organization to allow readers to combine forces to produce their own editorial pieces. However, they shut it down after a few people besieged it with inappropriate material.In December 2008, the Tribune Company filed for bankruptcy protection.[13]The single copy rate is $2. Since March 2015 the paper increased its daily price $0.50 (33.3%) to match its Sunday/Thanksgiving Day rate.Through 2014, the?Times?had won 41? HYPERLINK "" \o "Pulitzer Prize" Pulitzers, including four in editorial cartooning, and one each in spot news reporting for the 1965? HYPERLINK "" \o "Watts Riots" Watts Riots?and the? HYPERLINK "" \o "1992 Los Angeles riots" 1992 Los Angeles riots. HYPERLINK "" \l "cite_note-14" [14]Times?sportswriter? HYPERLINK "(sportswriter)" \o "Jim Murray (sportswriter)" Jim Murray?won a Pulitzer in 1990.Times?investigative reporters?Chuck Philips?and?Michael Hiltzik?won the Pulitzer in 1999[15]?for a year-long series that exposed corruption in the music business.[16]?Mark Saylor, then-entertainment editor of the business section, said it recognized "aggressive reporting on the hometown industry ... where?The LA Times?has long labored under a cloud, the misperception that ...[they]... were soft on the entertainment industry".[16]Times?journalist?David Willman?won the 2001?Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting; the organization cited "his pioneering expose of seven unsafe prescription drugs that had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and an analysis of the policy reforms that had reduced the agency's effectiveness."[17]?In?2004, the paper won five prizes, which is the third-most by any paper in one year (behind?The New York Times?in?2002?(7) and?The Washington Post?in?2008?(6)).Times?reporters Bettina Boxall and Julie Cart won a?Pulitzer Prize?for Explanatory Reporting in 2009 "for their fresh and painstaking exploration into the cost and effectiveness of attempts to combat the growing menace of wildfires across the western United States. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download