Nobody thinks people are getting literally “slammed” when it’s in an article title. Have you ever used or seen “decimated” to mean something other than “Every 10th man in a roman cohort was executed”? It’s hyperbole, metaphor, a play on words.
Here’s an article not describing mass death, but uses “carnage,” as cited by Merriam Webster in their online definition for “carnage,” emphasis mine:
In practice, Argentinian Cami Nogueira did take a heavy slam that resulted in a concussion and broken nose, and doctors advised her not to keep riding while she recovered.
But some level of carnage is typical amongst the men that compete at Rampage, too. The reigning champion, Cam Zink, was evacuated by helicopter with broken ribs and a punctured lung after crashing during the men’s competition on Saturday.
Carnage can mean any sort of chaos or harm coming to a group of people. I don’t see the use in pedantically hating on colorful language or simple literary devices.
Any editor that uses the word “slammed” in it’s current cliche slang context, should be immediately fired.
The fact that you’re defending that overwrought example of the degeneration of our media, and moreso, citing it as why this particular butchering of the English language is actually correct, is disheartening.
You can cite all of the other poorly written articles you want, stacking wrongs upon wrongs, won’t make this right.
This is a “get off my lawn” take. The language is not degenerating, it is evolving, as it always has and always will while people whine about kids these days and the way they speak. They quoted a student who correctly and metaphorically described the scene as carnage. This isn’t even a good example of “butchering” the English language – again, it’s just hyperbole.
Is slang “butchering” the language? Acronyms, initialisms? What about pidgin or creole?
e: I can almost promise you didn’t read that “poorly written” article, you just didn’t like the quote. It was found by reading the dictionary
Butchering language is an example of slang with a well-established context. But more than that, you’re not going to confuse my use of butchering when it’s discussing the concept of language.
Saying a scene is full of carnage, directly implies it resembles a war zone, mass shooting, or an explosion. Not 100 kids shitting themselves from a foodborne illness outbreak.
What if the headline said “It was an orgy of bodily fluids…”. This is called poor editorial discretion, and while that also could technically be understood to be accurate, it would also be editorial malpractice.
Oh, and lol. Seriously? What makes you think I didn’t spend 90 seconds reading that article about the mass food poisoning event…?
I would describe 100 people shitting themselves and throwing up as carnage lol. It’s not the same carnage left by a warzone, or the carnage left in the wake of a black friday sale, or the carnage that happens in a 10 car pileup.
You can take issue with “slammed” being overused or “carnage” being too flashy or something, but to say it amounts to malpractice and is a result of stupidity or low standards is not really fair imo. People use metaphorical language and hyperbole. It’s fine and normal
Also, I linked another article using carnage “incorrectly” and I thought that is what you were referring to. The writing quality is fine so I was not sure why you said it was low
I haven’t had to write in a news style too often, but headlines (from AP guidelines at least) are meant to stand entirely on their own and without context.
While I agree that language can and should change, the use of hyperbole, slang, or cliches in a headline can negatively impact the clarity of the headline, which is most important.
Does something like decimate or carnage have two widely accepted meanings now? Then as an editor, I would caution against their use in a headline. Something like “Hundreds sickened in suspected mass food poisoning at New Zealand university” seems fine and is without clickbait.
Not a bad point. I think the quotation marks and the subject matter made it clear. However, if there is this much ambiguity in interpretation I think it could be changed justifiably. I still don’t think this is some kind of egregious sin, though
Context matters a lot here, because they could easily have been talking about 100 dead, not 100 icky. This is clearly a context where using death as a metaphor is beyond inappropriate. There are at least two The Office (USA) gags about exactly that concept.
Nobody thinks people are getting literally “slammed” when it’s in an article title. Have you ever used or seen “decimated” to mean something other than “Every 10th man in a roman cohort was executed”? It’s hyperbole, metaphor, a play on words.
Here’s an article not describing mass death, but uses “carnage,” as cited by Merriam Webster in their online definition for “carnage,” emphasis mine:
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/redbull-rampage-recap-2024-women/
Carnage can mean any sort of chaos or harm coming to a group of people. I don’t see the use in pedantically hating on colorful language or simple literary devices.
Any editor that uses the word “slammed” in it’s current cliche slang context, should be immediately fired.
The fact that you’re defending that overwrought example of the degeneration of our media, and moreso, citing it as why this particular butchering of the English language is actually correct, is disheartening.
You can cite all of the other poorly written articles you want, stacking wrongs upon wrongs, won’t make this right.
This is a “get off my lawn” take. The language is not degenerating, it is evolving, as it always has and always will while people whine about kids these days and the way they speak. They quoted a student who correctly and metaphorically described the scene as carnage. This isn’t even a good example of “butchering” the English language – again, it’s just hyperbole.
Is slang “butchering” the language? Acronyms, initialisms? What about pidgin or creole?
e: I can almost promise you didn’t read that “poorly written” article, you just didn’t like the quote. It was found by reading the dictionary
Butchering language is an example of slang with a well-established context. But more than that, you’re not going to confuse my use of butchering when it’s discussing the concept of language.
Saying a scene is full of carnage, directly implies it resembles a war zone, mass shooting, or an explosion. Not 100 kids shitting themselves from a foodborne illness outbreak.
What if the headline said “It was an orgy of bodily fluids…”. This is called poor editorial discretion, and while that also could technically be understood to be accurate, it would also be editorial malpractice.
Oh, and lol. Seriously? What makes you think I didn’t spend 90 seconds reading that article about the mass food poisoning event…?
I would describe 100 people shitting themselves and throwing up as carnage lol. It’s not the same carnage left by a warzone, or the carnage left in the wake of a black friday sale, or the carnage that happens in a 10 car pileup.
You can take issue with “slammed” being overused or “carnage” being too flashy or something, but to say it amounts to malpractice and is a result of stupidity or low standards is not really fair imo. People use metaphorical language and hyperbole. It’s fine and normal
Also, I linked another article using carnage “incorrectly” and I thought that is what you were referring to. The writing quality is fine so I was not sure why you said it was low
I haven’t had to write in a news style too often, but headlines (from AP guidelines at least) are meant to stand entirely on their own and without context.
While I agree that language can and should change, the use of hyperbole, slang, or cliches in a headline can negatively impact the clarity of the headline, which is most important.
Does something like decimate or carnage have two widely accepted meanings now? Then as an editor, I would caution against their use in a headline. Something like “Hundreds sickened in suspected mass food poisoning at New Zealand university” seems fine and is without clickbait.
Not a bad point. I think the quotation marks and the subject matter made it clear. However, if there is this much ambiguity in interpretation I think it could be changed justifiably. I still don’t think this is some kind of egregious sin, though
Context matters a lot here, because they could easily have been talking about 100 dead, not 100 icky. This is clearly a context where using death as a metaphor is beyond inappropriate. There are at least two The Office (USA) gags about exactly that concept.
I didn’t think one second those students died in a war because of food poisoning.
It’s also put in quotes, which implies they’re quoting a person that was at the scene.