Spitting out the words
We in the newsroom found it fascinating and a little bit funny that CBS news anchor Katie Couric actually banned the word “sputum” from all future newscasts.
It seems that sputum caught the struggling anchor by surprise one evening and she mispronounced it and was embarrassed live on network television. Couric admitted that after the show she went on an arm-and-chest-punching rant against the reporter who wrote it into her copy. Sputum was then banned by the anchor.
There have been attempts to remove various words from the 680 lexicon from time to time, depending on the tastes of editors.
One editor used to remove the word “posh” from any script. She disliked the word almost as much as another editor who hated “moist”. We were once advised to discontinue the use of “youth” because it was too vague. The trouble was, police and other media use youth liberally and it’s hard to ignore. It’s also in the title of an important police act - The Youth Criminal Justice Act.
But how do you actually remove a word from the language? I don’t think you can. All it will take is someone new to come on staff at CBS and not get the word on the unofficial ban and … watch out for the punching to begin!
I’m no Katie Couric but I do know that I wouldn’t want my colleagues to be too afraid to use a word. Not that sputum comes up often, mind you. But when it does, it should be free to be heard!
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:24 am
While I’m not sure about the banning of such words as spitum, youth, or posh, there is one word I would ban from broadcast newsrooms.
That word is ANOTHER. It is a word you likely use every day. But in a newscast it can be confusing to the listener.
Here is why. At 6 am the listener hears, “There has been another fire death in Toronto.” At 7 am the same listener hears, “There has been another fire death in Toronto.” Exactly how many fire deaths have there been? One or two?
The use of “another” is imprecise, largely unnecessary, and quite frankly obnubilating. A similar ban should extend to its variations such as “one more” which oft replaces a numeric count as in “…the city’s 4th fire death this month, ” or as I far more properly heard heard on Sunday morning, “…three shootings overnight.”
July 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hi Fred,
You make an excellent point. I brought it up with the team during this morning’s pre-show pow-wow and we all agree, you are right. Thank you for the food for thought.
Lisa
PS. In radio we try to use everyday language so if I were writing your post I would have used “obscure” or “cloudy” instead of obnubilating!!
July 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
My question Lisa, is did you have to look up “obnubilating” to know its meaning? I did but hey Fred, thanks for making me work a little. I can hardly wait to use my NEW word.
CW
July 26th, 2007 at 4:46 am
I did have to look it up! And I don’t think I’ll be using it anytime soon. I’ll stick with cloudy so people can understand me.
But there is a special joy in learning a new word.
Cheers,
Lisa