BLOG

Although it’s not uncommon for celebrities or politicians to say they hate giving interviews, if truth be told, there are copywriters and journalists who hate making interviews, as well.

For some months now, I’ve been interviewing colleagues and friends for an upcoming e-book on creatives. And interviews are the lifeblood of business writing as well as of journalism. Veteran American journalists Mike Wallace (of “60 Minutes”) and Beth Knobel (lecturer at Fordham University) have written a primer that I’ve found helpful: Heat & Light: Advice for the Next Generation of Journalists (NY: Three Rivers, 2010). Here are 12 tips for making better interviews that lead to better articles. I’m adapting these myself, as I work:

(1) Prepare 50 (I’d say 20, depending on scope of the interview) questions arising from background research on your interviewee. Do this in order to be fully familiar with the topic. And be prepared to digress from your prepared set of questions, if more interesting lines of inquiry arise.

(2) Address the “why” and “so what” of the interviewee’s life or issues, as well as the “how, where and when.”

(3) Be sure to make your questions open-ended ones. Ones that can’t be answered with a simple yes/no. Open-ended questions are more likely to provide an interesting quotation for your article. And don’t ask questions that give the interviewee a choice, as it will give “box in” your interviewee and give them an “easy out” (64). For instance, don’t ask this: “Were you at the scene of the accident or did you arrive after it happened?” Continue reading “Hate making interviews? Here are 12 Tips from the Pros . . .”

For today’s blog: Disinterested or uninterested? Which is it and when?

The primary meaning of “disinterested” (Oxford English Dictionary) is “impartial,” or “not interested by considerations of personal advantage.” But, very surprisingly, its earliest recorded sense is “not interested” (i.e. a synonym for “uninterested”).

Using “disinterested” to mean uninterested is widespread, but the OED says it “should be avoided in careful writing.” Continue reading “Usage tip: “Disinterested” or “uninterested?” Which is it?”

Miscellaneous Usage Tips from The Chicago Manual of Style (aka The CMS). . . .

Those readers who watch Saskatoon’s television news or read the local newspaper may be especially tired of hearing or reading the following, common errors in usage. With a nod to the best guide on usage issues, The Chicago Manual of Style, I’ve been collecting these by my armchair for weeks:

1. “Off”: never put “of” after “off.” Here are two correct examples: “We got off the bus.” Or: “He jumped off the deep end.” (Not: “We got off of the bus . . .”)
2. “All right” is always two words. (Avoid “alright.”) Here is a correct example: “Was she all right, after she fell?”
3. “Altogether” versus “all together?” The first “altogether” means “wholly” or “entirely.” And “all together” refers to a unity of time or place. So the following is correct: “He was altogether drenched by the rain.” And “we were all together on Labour Day.”
4. “Amend” versus “emend.” “Amend” means “to change or add to.” (The corresponding noun is “amendment.”) And “emend” means “to correct (text, etc.).” (The corresponding noun is “emendation”). Some correct examples are these: “I amended Nick’s version of the story to include Nathalie’s ideas.”   And “I emended the error-filled manuscript to reflect Garner’s rules.”
5. And last but not least (the most annoying and pervasive errors these days): Demonstrative pronouns like “There is, there are; that is, those are; ” must use proper subject-verb agreement. So one would write: “There are five responses to his social media posting” (and NOT “There’s five responses to his social media posting . . .). And “Those are the best samples in the bunch” (and NOT “that’s the best samples in the bunch.”) This error comes from creating a colloquial contraction that obscures the need for a plural pronoun and verb. On thinking about it, you’ll see the above examples are not difficult. But the errors (especially #5) are so pervasive that even academics and etymologists now make them.A friend recommends the site www.grammarly.com over MS Word’s spell- and grammar-checkers. Do you use such online resources? Or do you think that old-fashioned reading should teach us the principles, once and for all? (The CMS remains the best place to start studying . . . )

   What are your grammatical or linguistic bugbears? Please share them with me for a future posting.

Last spring, on CBC radio’s “Sunday Edition,” veteran journalist Michael Enright interviewed Mary Norris, copy editor of “New Yorker” Magazine, on the publication of her first book, Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen (New York: W.W. Norton, 2015). You can listen to the 34 minute interview here. The book is in part a memoir of the more than three decades Norris has spent in the magazine’s copy department, but is more fully a meditation and handbook on language usage. I recommend it as a fun and insightful read. It will sharpen or refresh your writing skills and allow you to read Norris’ stories from inside the work of professional editing.

She gives many pointers, drawing on her 30 years as an editor and proofreader, drawing upon several sources, like Bryan Garner’s Garner’s Modern American Usage. She analyzes spelling, grammar and punctuation use–including dashes, semi-colons, colons, apostrophes and even on using expletives, in formal text.

Norris describes editing copy many years ago for the Christmas shopping lists of the “New Yorker.” There she would find strings of adjectives would be joined together (e.g. “a floor length cardigan coat in leaf-patterned black silk jacquard”). She says that she’d “get lost in all the throngs of adjectives” of those seasonal listings. And she ably demonstrates for readers the rules governing comma use between adjectives that precede nouns.

Norris tells us that usage guides say that if you can substitute “and” for the comma in a list of adjectives without losing meaning then the comma belongs there. So Norris cites the author James Salter for making that error: “Eve was across the room in a thin, burgundy dress that showed the faint outline of her stomach” (104, emphasis added). Here, Norris notes that “thin and burgundy” does not make sense, because the two adjectives are “not coordinate. They do not belong to the same order,” because “burgundy” modifies “dress” more “tenaciously” than “thin” does. Continue reading ““New Yorker” Magazine’s Mary Norris on Comma Usage . . .”

In his “Usage Tip of the Day” (June 17, 2015), American Etymologist Bryan Garner corrects a common confusion between two similar sounding (and meaning) verbs (long a bugbear of mine):

mitigate (vs). militate

“Mitigate” = to make less severe or intense (Garner writes: “the new drug mitigates the patient’s discomfort”).

“Militate” = to exert a strong influence (Garner writes: “Harry’s conflicting schedule militates against an October 17 meeting.”)

Garner corrects a common error in usage: “Mitigate against,” is incorrect for “militate against.”

He provides two useful examples to demonstrate this error:

(1) “In general, the speed of mass communication mitigates [read ‘militates’] against exploring an issue carefully as people’s attention span decreases in correlation with shorter, rapid-fire presentation.” (Barry R. McCaffrey, “Perspective on Illegal Drugs,” L.A. Times, 2 Jan. 1997, p B7, in Garner, 1).

(2) “It is the one thing that most mitigates [read ‘militates’] against the Patriots winning their last two games.” (Ron Borges, “Two-Game Series for Patriots,” Boston Globe, 18 Dec. 2002, p E1, in Garner, 1).

Today, Garner writes, “mitigate” is almost invariably transitive, a synonym of “alleviate.” The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes an intransitive sense, meaning “to grow milder or less severe,” but labels it rare.

Garner says that using “mitigate” with “against” is not standard e.g. (3): “The show’s excellent 57-page guide mitigates against [read ‘mitigates’] its density, as does the curators’ healthy respect for the impact of real things.” (Roberta Smith, “Icy Genius with a Taste for Order,” N.Y. Times, 29 Nov. 2002, p E37 in Garner, 1).

I’d add a similar error of mine, from undergrad days (4): “Lorna Crozier’s speaker provides a momentary flicker of optimism that mitigates against [the “against” should be moved] the unrelenting despair of the closing lines.”

As a reader and editor, I rarely see the term “militate” used at all, and when I do, it’s usually used wrongly: Garner concludes that “Militate against” — as well as “militate in favor of” or “militate for” — is perfectly acceptable. E.g (5).: “The campaign he ran militates against the historic presidency he would like to lead.” (Jonathan Rauch, “Self-Inflicted Budget Woes,” U.S. News & World Rep., 18 Nov. 1996, p 94, in Garner, 1).

I’ll add this (6): “Readers’ conscientious efforts to understand errors in usage militate in favour of Garner continuing to share his ‘usage tips.’ ”

Garner concludes that “militate toward” is unidiomatic.

Have you confused “mitigate” and “militate” in your mind? Or avoided both because you weren’t sure how to distinguish between them? Please share your usage bugbears with me! With your permission, I’ll use them in a future blog or e-newsletter.