AND TODAY'S "IN" WORD IS........

ro·bust Adjective

1. (of a person, animal, or plant) Strong and healthy; vigorous.

2. (of an object) Sturdy in construction.

Is it just me or is robust the “in” word at the moment?

A lot of people like it and are using it. Whether it’s up-against-it police chiefs in the aftermath of the riots in London, politicians defending their policies or banks and bankers trying to avoid a shake-up, robust is in demand.

It’s not a word I dislike, the opposite in fact and one I have used selectively in my role as a PR – but hearing it every day grates.

Some of the coaches at the World Cup Rugby, or Rugby World Cup even, have used the word, too. To me, that’s a sport that involves being robust at all times.

I wonder how words suddenly slip into fashion?

“Devastated” is very popular and has been for many years, as I can recall from my days as a tabloid journalist intruding in private grief. Sports stars, victims of crime, people involved in tragedies all used, and still do use, this one word response.

Transparency and accountability are high in the usage charts, too, alongside credible, incentivise, leverage, tangible, keynote and synergy. They crop up all the time. They are words of the moment. The loathsome “tasked” is another, sadly. I hate it when nouns are suddenly sullied by those who use them as verbs.

“Quite rightly” – OK that’s two words – is a phrase I’m fed up hearing, especially when spouted by a politician who has been challenged on some issue or other and is trying to give the impression of even-handedness while dismissing the criticism. Staying with politicians. The way they dismiss a question by declaring in an answer: “A more important question is…” Blooming cheek. Anyway, I’ve strayed from the topic slightly.

Visceral* and venal**, whose meanings I always need to look up in the dictionary, have been on my radar for some time. Music, book and film critics like, no, love them in their reviews. But they just came from nowhere, it seems to me.

I don’t know if any experts can pinpoint or explain why some words suddenly escape from the anonymity of the dictionary pages and become so popular. And does it work in reverse? What will replace today’s liking of robust? That’s anyone’s guess – what do you think it might be?

* felt in or as if in the internal organs of the body: a deep inward feeling.

** capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration.

CHURNING OUT THE WORDS

I’ve been following the conversations and reading a range of articles on the issue of “churnalism” – and I am struggling to work out what the fuss is all about.

I run my own PR business and I am a former print journalist and when I started out in newspapers in the early 70s, PRs, as we know them today, were as rare as a news editor saying ‘thanks, well done” on a big story. Times have changed in PR, though I don’t know if news editors today are any more praiseworthy when it comes to the staff they have left.

Is the media becoming “a pawn” of the PR industry has been one question raised. My answer to that is: “We wish.”

The Media Standards Trust charity and its new website – good coverage of its launch was created by its PR team, incidentally – examines “news” of print and broadcast outlets, and measures up how much the information slavishly follows news releases from PR companies.

You can check the results for yourself http://churnalism.com/

In my experience, rarely – if ever – do newspapers or radio outlets or TV stations run a News Release word for word. The News Release can form the basis of news or feature copy for the media outlet concerned if and when editorial executives decide that the content is interesting enough for their readers/viewers. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s no secret that media outfits have slashed the size of their editorial teams. As a result, there are fewer journalists in house to drum up the ideas to fill the daily news, features, specialist schedules that in turn fill the following day’s papers or the evening news bulletins. PR companies can provide information, suggestions and opportunities for the Press to take a look at, develop or, as often happens, reject.

But PRs are not in control of the media, well, I’m not and never will be. Or want to be for that matter. As I say to hopeful clients, I have a measure of influence but no final control. After all, the best PR fed story in the world will vanish if a major disaster strikes or last-minute advert is needed for a page.

No journalist today - be they staff on a tabloid or a broadsheet or in a news agency - would be in their right mind to shovel News Releases into a paper or broadcast programme without all the usual, necessary checks being made. At times, the News Release submitted can even be tweaked, twisted and torn apart to suit a particular newspaper’s editorial agenda. We’ve all been there, but, thankfully, not that often.

http://www.prmoment.com/585/by-copying-press-releases-word-for-word-are-churnalists-journalists-destroying-the-authority-of-news.aspx

So any notion that journalists today are in any way sloppy and happy to grab a News Release with both hands, slap a by-line on it and submit it to their editorial superiors is fanciful in the extreme. Doesn’t sound like any of the fine journalists I know and deal with on a regular basis. In fact, that insults the good journos working flat out in news rooms where empty chairs outnumber the occupied.

On the other hand, there is nothing devious, cheap or nasty about PRs offering ideas to journalists, or supplying images because a media outlet doesn’t have resources to take one for themselves. But that’s a far cry from leading the Press agenda. I see my efforts as a PR of being only part of it and, yes, if my clients have a positive, profile-raising outcome, I reckon I’ve done my job pretty well.

Neither is the so-called lack of investigative journalism – being replaced by churnalism, some claim – the fault of the PR industry. The MPs’ expenses scandal was a big, full-on exemplary piece of investigative journalism, so that weakens that argument in some ways, doesn’t it.

To my mind, PRs and journalists benefit from each other’s existence. The journalist who gets the case study for a feature in time to meet a deadline because a PR has set something up is grateful, and so is the PR for a positive outcome. By the same token, the journalist who can’t persuade a PR to be more revelatory in some circumstances will be displeased. The PR whose briefing is distorted will also be far from chuffed.

The journalist getting, for example, the “big jobs boost story” is happy, the PR acting on behalf of the jobs’ boosting organisation is equally content. And the readers/viewers will be interested in new jobs. This is a simplistic example, I admit, but it does show the mutual benefits to both the Press and PR camps.

If you agree, I’d be pleased to hear from you. If you don’t, I’d like to hear what you think, too.

HOWLERS ON THE RADIO

I will be making every effort to catch this BBC radio programme on Monday, March 7 http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/news/gobbledygook-on-the-bbc.html

It’s the day the Plain English Campaign – http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ – holds its annual awards so I’m keenly anticipating gobbledygook howlers with the guilty named and shamed and suitably humiliated.

I am looking forward to hearing of one example from the NHS that took 229 words to define a hospital bed. Made or unmade, I don’t know.

I’ve blogged before on my love of plain English and I reckon I visit the Plain English Campaign’s excellent website regularly. I’ve often thought it would be great to work for them.

It can be amusing to berate those who drivel for a living and it is certainly infuriating to come up against buzzwords in business and elsewhere that mean absolutely nothing.

But news reports this week from the coroner’s inquest into the July 7 bomb attacks in London said that baffling jargon could costs lives as it caused confusion among emergency service personnel.

Do you have any idea what “a conference demountable unit from the management resource unit” is? Me neither.

It is a mobile control room – so why not say that?

This bureaucratic bluster prompted one MP to suggest that jargon is “often used by people who have been trained, rather than taught to think.”

Now that’s worrying, isn’t it?

For 30 years, the Campaign has proved to be one of the most powerful grass-roots movements in the UK. Its website is a delight and I suggest you try the grammar quiz – I got three wrong so my Dad would have been horrified.

It also has interesting comments including one from former Prime Minister Thatcher, who said: “Some people think that flowery language and complicated writing is a sign of intellectual strength. They are wrong.”

This is the only time I have ever agreed with her.

BOIL THE OCEAN - TICK ANY BOXES?

I have been amused, bemused and hugely entertained by a LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/ discussion that has focused on “buzzwords” or, more precisely, the “buzzwords” that should be erased, wiped out, eradicated, binned, dumped, banned, buried – for ever.

Like the word “buzzword” itself, as one contributor suggested prompting no argument from me. When a BBC2 Newsnight presenter used the expression “bigging up” one night last week, I knew that my time in the doldrums as far as blogging was concerned needed to end.

Apologies for being pedantic, but the “buzzwords” topic should really have been about ridding the world – pronto – of annoying and meaningless phrases or terms that people in business, mainly, have latched on to and use, remorselessly, thinking they sound authoritative, smart or contemporary.

Or, maybe, like bonus-winning bankers, they think they are hoodwinking us with their snake-oil jargon, the nest of vipers that they are.

That aside the LinkedIn conversation, started by Jim Bianchi, who heads his own PR company in the Detroit area, has been enlightening and informative. http://jbianchi777.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/20-business-buzzwords-you-want-to-kill/

Loads of us want this gobbledygook to end, the gibberish that clouds reality – words stuck together that mean little or nothing.

Even in the world of hiring new staff, the latest buzzwords and phrases are causing confusion leading to demands for plain talking from applicants.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/jobs/chi-linkedin-job-cliches-010311,0,82925.story

While, many of the examples responding to Jim Bianchi’s question were US- centric, we will recognise many and, worse, will be reminded of people who use them as naturally as they stare at their iPhone/Blackberry when you’re in their company.

One of the first to bob up was a belter - boil the ocean. Brilliant. What does it mean? I had no idea until some helpful US contributor suggested: "….if a member of the corporate pantheon suggests you are trying to ‘boil the ocean,’ he or she thinks you are doing something incredibly inefficiently.” Is that the same as “you’re making a mess of it?”

My tuppence worth included “raft of ideas” and the really annoying "ticking all the rihgt boxes" but this guy, Tim Trout - http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/tim-trout/18/21b/a46had - had me in fits with this example he had come across.

“We are a full-spectrum consumer-focused solutions provider. Our teams are experienced in transitioning processes and systems to supply the platform your organisation and customers need. Our iterative product-development methodologies expedite the evolution of next-generation functionality. We can enhance your existing business and portal strategies or collaborate across disciplines to create new and exciting iterative change.” As Tim put it, “…a cool twenty or more for the price of one.” Utterly gruesome and shocking that some people are dim enough to fall or be impressed by such verbiage – or mince, to be more precise.

Action plan; 
at the end of the day; bells and whistles; best practice; blamestorming; 
blue sky thinking; goal-oriented; fit for purpose; moving the goal posts; 
multi-tasking; on the same page; open door policy; parachute in; tasked; touch base; transparency and value-added. A catalogue of the meaningless spouted by the vacuous, I suggest.

Not forgetting, of course, “thought showers” instead of “brainstorming.” To think someone, somewhere had enough time to sit and create this dross.

Any other examples? I’d love to hear about them. Or versionise, as I heard someone utter during a Radio Scotland interview recently.

A BIG ASK - AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

The English language is suffering from a real mangling nowadays. This saddens and worries me.

Stupid phrases, meaningless responses and a general sloppiness in many sectors are all combining to muck it all up.

A big ask – I ask you? Isn’t that just one of the most horrible and totally wrong utterances imaginable? It’s a crime against the language, that’s what I think. I loathe it. It’s horrible and ugly and doesn’t mean anything.

The last time I consulted a dictionary, I noticed that “ask” is a verb and definitely not a noun. You ask someone a question, you ask for information. A verb – easy to understand, you would think.

Hard on its heels to make me cringe is the equally execrable term – big up to so-and-so. What? Up is an adverb, has been since I was a lad and will be when I no longer have the energy to rant.

It’s another crime and, no, I don’t want to pop a chill pill (hideous) as I move seamlessly on to more expressions that make me shudder or worse.

I confess – not “fess up” – to being a pedant when it comes to language and grammar but I reckon it’s easy for people who use these expressions to sort themselves out.

Hold tight.

A raft of ideas – I hate this, especially when the “raft” then has its ideas “rolled out.” Awful, isn’t it?

“Absolutely” could be my reply but that word is used sickeningly often today. Big culprits are at-the-scene TV reporters when linking to studio-based presenters who have a asked question such as: “I imagine the atmosphere is tense there with 10 dead?”

Reporter: “Absolutely.” I pray someone, sometime will say, instead, to such an inquiry: “yes, obviously” or “that’s right” or “got it in one.”

If I didn’t abhor this description, I would say a lot of people today need to experience a “learning curve” – usually steep for added dramatic effect – to get them back to simple statements that mean what they say.

Now that’s what I’d call “joined up thinking/ planning/action” if only I didn’t include “joined up something-or-other” in my pet hates. Does it really mean anything: not to me it doesn’t.

Here’s another one to bother and baffle. “Not fit for purpose” – just say “no use, useless, inappropriate…” anything but jargon that serves no purpose.

OK, I hear you say it’s time to “Draw a line under this” – groan and groan again. If I “draw a line under” something, a word or a phrase, for example, then this means I want to be drawn to it, to remember it – not forget it.

And in business, while I am always happy to be given notice of something or be briefed on an issue, please don’t say to me: “I thought I’d give you a heads up.” It’s on my sin list and so is “no brainer,” a useless saying, overused and also unwanted in my book.

So, if people can be persuaded to get rid of all these rank awful phrases, I’ll be contented, pleased, gratified – but don’t dare call me “a happy bunny.” Crikey, that’s really duff.

Feel free to share your thoughts on this. Am I stuck in the grammar glory days of the past, or do I have a point? Let me know one way or another, if you wish.

Non-circumlocutory, oral communication...what?

“….non-circumlocutory, oral communication dispensed by an orator who has no predilection for verbiage and is far from prolix or magniloquent in manner…”

These weighty words – I had to look up three of them in the dictionary – feature in a very clever advert by legal firm Macroberts – http:// www.macroberts.com

The company follows them with the comment “Straight–talking” and emphasises in the ad that they offer straight-to-the-point business law.

I’m all for plain speaking so the ad appeals to me. I came across it as I ploughed through an insurance policy following another water leak episode in my bathroom where floorboards had to be ripped up to trace the source of the problem. The policy is, you’ll not be surprised to learn, classically confusing. It sucks the will to read on, each sentence a barrier, each paragraph formed to sap all energy.

Even in day-to-day business, people speak or write in needlessly, long- winded ways that really grate. The Plain English Campaign http:// www.plainenglish.co.uk/ and fine bloggers such as Marian Dougan at http:// wordstogoodeffect.wordpress.com/ write in interesting ways - and most eloquently - about words and language, subjects that intrigue me.

I liked this list from the folks at the Plain English Campaign. They say the words in brackets are just as – or even more – effective and I homologate. Sorry, that means I agree.

additional (extra)

advise (tell) 

commence (start)

forward (send)

in excess of (more than) 

in respect of (for) 

in the event of (if) 

on request (if you ask) 

particulars (details)

per annum (a year) 

persons (people) 

prior to (before)

purchase (buy) 

regarding (about) 

terminate (end)

whilst (while)

I’m keen to learn any examples people my have of gobbledygook or drivel, as some might suggest.

Keep It Clean and Tidy

There is so much available to read as social media continues to expand but, unfortunately, a lot of it is riddled and marred by bad spelling and poor grammar.

To me, rightly or otherwise, such factors indicate a sloppiness and a questionable attitude to detail, particularly in the world of business.

But when I re-read the words in my second paragraph I realise that it is a somewhat harsh attitude, unforgiving and set in stone. Maybe I need to lighten up. Yes?

I am always annoyed if I find I have sent an email or draft News Release or letter to a client – or anyone for that matter – with a typo in it. And it does happen. In texts, too, I’ve slipped up.

Thankfully, I'm not a serial offender but I'm hard on myself when mistakes occur. They look so bad. Sometimes my head is about three or four words ahead of my fingers so typos and misplaced words do up crop – see that?

Among the worst offenders, I've found, are those who submit, speculatively, requests for positions in my company or work placements. Their CVs can be riddled with errors and some even manage to spell my name wrong - or should that be wrongly? For good measure, some even muck up their own email addresses, or end with a chirpy (and I’m not kidding): “Hope to here from you in due coarse.”

There are errors galore on the social media sites I read and, no doubt, it’s down to people wanting to respond quickly to something or other. That, I suppose, is understandable. However, nothing wrong with checking a message before sending it, is there?

One fellow PR person I know wrote a single sentence Tweet recently that couldn’t have had more blunders in it if she’d tried. Two spelling mistakes, an inaccurate hotel name and the classic “it’s” misused – and all in 140 characters.

Like others, I find computer spell checks fairly ineffective so I open my dictionary frequently. A by-product of this is that you come across words you’ve never seen before and maybe will never have the opportunity to use.

Simple spelling errors and grammatical mistakes aside – they’re not life-threatening, after all and none of us is perfect – I also have a problem with swear words in Tweets or on Facebook and the likes, even the words with ** in them, as if that makes them less offensive.

I’m no prude. Having worked in national newspaper newsrooms for 25 years or more, the language used could make a building site labourer blush, and that’s just from the women.

On TV, too, swearing is commonplace and I don’t mean just on the sports’ pitches. Comedians have been swearing their way through gags for years and the good ones – Billy Connolly, for example – make it almost an art form, which doesn’t appeal to one and all, necessarily.

Most of those guilty of swearing, it must be said, are those hiding behind anonymity, but it has been sneaking in to other business forums as well.

As social media is a way of starting conversations, dialogue, finding advocates for businesses, foul language really has no place, in my book. No-one in their right mind would submit a proposal, for example, littered with four-letter words of the sweary kind.

In a public forum, in print and online and for all the world to see, I think swearing is a no-no and most folk, it has to be said, keep it clean.

Am I being pedantic and too fussy, too squeaky clean and prudish, out-of-touch or spot-on? Let me know – and no swearing, if you please.

And, of course, fingers are now crossed that there are no spelling mistakes, literals or words missed out in this bolg. I have chequed.