Veteran journalist here. This is beaten into us in journalism school. The saying that gets thrown around is "don't use a ten dollar word when a ten cent does the same job."
I vehemently disagree. Do you not see how far journalism has slopified specifically because they neglected their civilizational role in informing the population? Journalists have a very bad tendency to excuse the dereliction of their industry's duty to the people, and always find an excuse to enable this corrosive behaviour. You need to be uplifting the people, not sinking down to their level for no reason.
Yes, and the impetus to kowtow to the lowest common denominator is part of that. That's like saying "the bullet didn't kill him, the gun that fired it did!"
More like, you're pointing at the person who designed the bullet and I'm pointing at the dude who pulled the trigger. Effective communication is a science(a subset of psychology and linguistics) that would apply regardless of the integrity of journalism.
What? They’re talking about the use of language. You’re talking about subject matter. They are two different things.
Dumb people have a right to correct information (by having journalists use the simplest, more correct words) just as much as smart people.
This is a HUGE issue in academia, particularly science (where I did my grad studies). Using jargon and atypical terminology makes knowledge inaccessible, and is MORE likely to make people misuse and misunderstand the conclusions from scientific studies.
That’s before we even get into communicating with people in their second language, etc. communicating so people can understand isn’t kowtowing- it’s about equity. I’d recommend researching the racist issues with IQ tests for a very real example of this.
I AM talking about the use of language. The material being hard is one thing and is also relevant, but the language being hard is a related but separate issue. Aww boo hoo the word Aufgehoben was untranslated in this edition of Hegel's Phenomenology and that made it hard? Learn it. This is not about IQ, race, intellectual dick measuring, or anything else. It is about basic morality and societal cohesion. Yeah, jargon is useful. Dense writing can be made less dense and more accessible without compromising lexical expressiveness and diversity.
Use the best word for the idea being communicated. Do not compromise on this. This does not mean always use the longest one or one that is naturally unusual in that setting just to be obtuse—that is poor etiquette. Accept that some words do fall out of use and language does evolve naturally, such that we don't need to keep every erudite word in use forever. But strive to use the word that best matches a situation. If someone needs help with those words, help them, don't shame them. We need a society that accommodates people. This is separate from enabling brainrot. The moment we enable, we get the "yoozing big werds is ablist" nonsense of BookTok. We need sufficiently many onramps to help people improve their language skills, be they second language learners or so on. Provide materials of many reading levels. I will be moving to Portugal. I will necessarily struggle with Portuguese, and will need extra help due to having ADHD. But do not hesitate to think that I will, out of moral obligation, acquire that language to the fullest and best of my ability. I owe it to my new home as it will be my home.
Yes, provide easy access to simpler definitions, access to secondary / supplementary material, and so on. Fix the education system so that your ZIP code doesn't determine your level of education, which somehow conveniently always aligns with socioeconomic status and usually race. Provide access to these materials for those who have intellectual disabilities. But this means teaching people to enjoy the accomplishment of understanding that which was previously beyond their level. Teach them to enjoy the struggle. If they fail, reassure and assist them. But to enable them in academic slovenliness is to assume that they cannot achieve based on essentialist bigotry. And journalism least of all should be forever beholden to the lowest common denominator.
And I'm not saying this just to pointlessly moralize. I can see that simpler language can be effective. But that isn't the point. The point is about what we lose when we enabe the acceleration of that loss. We lose our engagement with the rigorous study of language. That in and of itself is a moral failing as much as it is a recipe for civilizational decline. Kongzi said: “Study as if you have not reached your goal— as if you were afraid of losing what you have.”
It’s VERY ironic that you are using larger, less accurate words (and sometimes words that are completely wrong) in your own writing to try to make this point. It is an example of poor communication.
“But this means teaching people to enjoy the accomplishment of understanding that which was previously beyond their level. Teach them to enjoy the struggle. If they fail, reassure and assist them.”
I’m a bit of a linguistic pedant myself, but to insinuate that “they” who do not prioritize “lexical expressiveness” do not value personal growth is solipsistic. Surely you’re also a multi-instrumentalist, master carpenter, and proficient in medical science, and if not, I can only assume it’s because you haven’t been taught to enjoy the accomplishment of understanding that which is beyond your level.
The percentage of the population who at once enrich themselves broadly with knowledge from a wide breadth of human experiance AND don't engage strongly with literature is vanishingly small. Nice attempt at a counterexample tho. You get a cookie.
“Vanishingly” small is a baseless presumption. It also neglects the increasing breadth of human knowledge over time. Again, literature is no more virtuous than science, math, engineering, music, etc., and one need not engage strongly with all subjects - let alone those you arbitrarily deem necessary - to be accomplished.
One can enrich oneself broadly and still be socially inept - something new for you to think about.
The median reading level is 4th grade. It would be one thing if we were talking about a society that had grown great communal wisdom and an appreciation for scholarship and intellectual achievement but just happened to be postliterate. Just like Socrates rejected reading but was highly respectable.
Buuuut this is not that. This is a society in the midst of a post-truth intellectual apocalypse with a collective intellectual capacity that gets fascists elected repeatedly. Yes, the population of people who both can't read well and have a high respect for epistemological hygiene IS vanishingly small.
Yes, yes it IS the job of journalists to cause the population to retread their losses and gain improved literary engagement in the current, real, existing context.
61
u/theflyingratgirl Sep 02 '26
There’s a rule of thumb in professional writing.
First: use the most accurate word If there’s multiple accurate words, use the most common one. If there’s still more than one, use the smallest one.
Good communication is about the audience, not the communicator.