Forgive me for being pedantic, but I hate it when I see misleading cliches such as this one in the WSJ today:
U.S. Navy Seal sharpshooters brought a five-day hostage standoff to an abrupt end Sunday with a hail of bullets that killed three pirates holding Capt. Phillips.
It’s not just that it’s a cliche. I’ve got nothing against cliches in general; they can be a handy way to communicate information quickly. What gets me is when they are clearly at odds with the facts.
Those Seals took out those pirates with three perfectly aimed rounds, probably fired simultaneously.
“Hail of bullets” makes it sound as though those Seals were no-talent gangsters wildly spraying the scene on full auto or something. Sonny Corleone died in a hail of bullets. Last scene of “Bonnie and Clyde?” Hail of bullets. But this was not.
Do such things bother you, too? And yes, it seems a small thing to worry about in the context of three lives suddenly and messily snuffed out, but I appreciate precision in language as well as in marksmanship (in a good cause, that is).
Related Posts
Well, there is a lot of bad journalism out there. But as bad as a choice of words like this, what is really bad is when journalists pretend they know something about a topic, and they don’t have a clue. Lisa Miller at Newsweek is especially bad about, but I would expect religion editors to know something about religion, or in this case, Pentecostal religion. But they don’t seem to. I mean, all due respect to Tony Blair, but Ruth Gledhill really botches an interview with him, including, among other things, homosexuality and the Catholic church. Do these people really think that the latest opinion polls are supposed to determine right and wrong? At least she could have brought in some heavy weights on the interpretation of Scripture. I mean, “Jesus taught people to think differently, therefore . . . [we should jettison what Jesus taught, because we think differently].”
Sorry for mentioning another subject, but nowhere is bad journalism evident than on the subject of religion . . . .
I read the WSJ piece and understand how the description could be misinterpreted. Three well placed sniper rounds is a far cry from “a hail of bullets” but then, it would depend on your vantage point, wouldn’t it?
If you were the three Somalian pirates, “a hail of bullets” might be the appropriate description if you were around long enough to detect them. On the other hand, the snipers would object to their handiwork being described as anything other than a successfully coordinated operation.
Considering the situation from my vantage point thousands of miles away, it is amazing the snipers each hit their chosen target with one round each, through a window in a covered life raft, at night, on the ocean. Outstanding training and discipline.
While not an Obama supporter, on this one, he deserves credit for giving approval for a command decision based on their evaluation and conditions “on the ground”.
Your mention of the WSJ brings to mind a question. One often hears the term “national newspaper” which I have always taken to mean a paper with a large national circulation. Is there a more precise definition within the trade. Is there a list of national newspapers? My guess would be NYT, WSJ, Washington Post(?), USA Today(?).
Any news story involving firearms is usually rife with ignorance.
The reporters and commentators pepper their writing with buzzwords intended to incite the audience and reinforce the anti-American agenda of most of the media.
arsenal
killing fields
high-capacity magazine
automatic
assault rifle
cop-killer bullets
“National newspapers” would include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and, by definition, USAToday.
The Washington Post would probably be next on the list, but while it is a far more RESPECTED paper than USAToday, it reads almost like a small-town paper — only the small town is D.C. Yes, its topics are national because of its location, but it’s a very inside-the-Beltway perspective.
At least, that’s the way it read the last time I sat down and read it. It’s been years since I’ve held a copy of it in my hands.
Herb correctly identifies another area in which most media get confused — religion. One would think, from the way religion is usually covered, that the only thing that goes on in churches is debates over gay clergy or some such. Some papers do better with religion than others. Actually, the NYT historically has done a pretty good job of explaining church issues. They’re also good at something else that many outlets are weak at — covering science and technology. My favorite anecdote illustrating that: I was the news editor of the Wichita paper when the Challenger exploded. I had all sorts of news services to select my stories from in those days, but one that I picked for the front page was written by a science writer for the NYT who, in the lead of his story on the day of the disaster, actually pointed to the O-rings. NOBODY else got that that fast. It made a lasting impression on me.
in the lead of his story
Is it lead or lede?
USA Today, the NY Times, and WA Post lead the pack in inaccurate reporting and faux news laden with propaganda phrases and disinformation. Papers in the hinterlands, like Columbia, lap up this swill and regurgitate it to their readers.