Should Journalists Embrace Jargon? 184
ananyo writes "In an opinion piece for Nature, science writer Trevor Quirk argues that researchers use jargon to 'capture the complexity and specificity of scientific concepts.' Avoiding jargon might mean that a piece ends up easier to read, but explaining a jargon term using everyday language 'does not present the whole truth,' he says. 'I find it troubling that the same antipathy that some writers express towards jargon has taken root in the public's general attitude towards erudite language. I submit that this is no coincidence. People seem to resent not just specialized language, but any language that requires a large degree of labour to understand, appreciate and use,' he writes. 'The world increases in complexity every day, and we should not let shrink our capacity to describe it.'"
Yes. (Score:1, Insightful)
However, some language prescribes different meaning within different contexts. Anonymous on slashdot is different than Anonymous in the news is different from an anonymous ftp login.
Yes, absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
But first, please stop using "God particle", which is not jargon. It is just stupid.
Should journalists understand what they write? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should journalists understand what they write?
I mean really, what possible purpose could understanding the topic of conversation possibly contribute?
Re:Yes, absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a great example of where trying to use plain language does more harm than good. On the other hand 'black hole' rather than 'completely gravitationally collapsed object' probably conveys the concept reasonably well.
Unfortunately science has a habit of using language, and then finding out it does a bad job of describing something, e.g. atoms, and neural networks, which are, despite the names not indivisible and not actually all that similar to neuron connections in the brain respectively.
Trying to reduce everything to a 6th grade reading level makes people think problems can actually be explained at a 6th grade level, and they can't. That this has crept into economic discourse has caused us no end of grief in trying to have honest fact based discussions about the current economic crisis for example.
Speak the Reader's Language (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speak the Reader's Language (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this sort of non-sense continuing to come up? If your audience is highly technical, and knowledgeable in the field then speak the language. If they are not, then bring it down to their level. It's common sense.
There is nothing wrong with educating the reader. In fact, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that was the whole point of writing.
When an author needs to explain parts of some THING or some THEORY, using the terms that the reader is likely to encounter in further reading is of benefit to the reader, and shouldn't be avoided. Nothing wrong with explaining your terms. Nothing wrong with providing a quick glossary/appendix (or links thereto) either.
No scientist or college course explained to me what Ullage Motors were. Walter Cronkite did.
Unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we not create so much unnecessary jargon in the first place? Is it really necessary to say "Mr.Smith, you have a serious condition called 'pneumothorax'", followed by an explanation when you could simply say "Mr.Smith, your lung has collapsed."? If there already is a simple descriptive term that adequately expresses what you wish to say, stop inventing argot just so you can look smart. Yes, people tend to think you are smart when you speak of things they don't understand. When you take advantage of that, you're just being a pompous jerk.
Re:Speak the Reader's Language (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, if the terms are introduced judiciously and glossed for those unfamiliar. I often see pseudo-erudite writing for popular audiences using "technical" terms gratuitously, though, sometimes in places where a less-jargony term would have actually been superior. Also, failing to explain the jargon terms that are used. That kind of usage often, imo, serves more as a dialectal marker intending to indicate the writer's background, as opposed to a good-faith communication strategy.
But Orwell already wrote about all this [wikipedia.org] a while ago.
Re:Glad someone said it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am totally behind this. The reason we have jargon and technical terms in the first place is specificity,
There are two reasons that jargon are used. First, by a person in the field to another person in the field to convey information based on a common understanding of the terms used. That's fine. That isn't what a journalist is trying to do, however.
The second reason to use jargon is to obfuscate the information or cause the recipient to lose interest. That, too, isn't what a journalist is supposed to do.
So, based on those two reasons, the answer is "NO", the journalist's job in conveying the information to his readers includes translating jargon. And if the journalist doesn't understand the jargon in the first place, he's going to have a hard time knowing which of the two reasons his source used the jargon is correct.
and failure to use these specially created words and phrases only causes confusion and false understandings.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language? How about the side effects of your prescription? Which is clearer? "This medication may cause dyspnea, anaphylaxis, or in rare cases pheochromocytoma. If you notice any of those, call an ambulance and come to the hospital immediately". Unless you are up on your medical jargon (most of us are not), you'll either be scared to death of any little event and calling 911 all the time, or not be aware that the "shortness of breath" or "itching" you are experiencing needs immediate attention. Much better to say "when you take this, you might have trouble breathing, suffer a severe alergic reaction, or in rare cases you might develop a tumor in your adrenal glands." Oh, ok. I know "trouble breathing". I know "allergic reaction". I don't know how I'd detect the last thing. Tell me more..."
Scientists typically have a hard time conveying information about what they do to the public, precisely because they become used to the jargon and don't realize that the average reading ability of their audience is 7th grade. The next time a scientists talks to you about "subaerial" events, ask him why he didn't just say "on the land". Yes, it's longer, but almost everyone understands "on the land" while not as many grasp "subaerial" (or the counterpart, subaqueous -- "underwater"). Or how about the ones who continually refer to "anthropogenic" when they could say "human-caused"?
We somehow managed to learn that meat could be chicken, beef, or pork,
"We" did? For many people "meat" means dog, cat, snake, horse, and a host of other things. It's what you deal with daily, so you know what you deal with daily.
How many people deal with dyspnea on a daily basis and have a reason to know about it, before the doctor who uses jargon uses it with you? Other than weather geeks who glue themselves to TWC, who knows "isobars"? Thermoclines? Isohaline contours? Common mode rejection?
how come we can't learn that T1 could be PRI, DIA, or dark?
"We" can, if we deal with it enough to need to know. Most of the public who reads the product of journalists don't study every field he covers so they can be conversant in the jargon. If you force people to look up the terms when they come across them, yes, you'll have "taught a man to fish" in a way, but more likely he'll say "fishing is too hard, I'm going to McDonald's. Call me when Big Brother is on."
By the way, your use of "dark" to refer to a T1 line is questionable. T1 is a copper pair which carries no light. "Dark" refers to fiber optic lines which do have a photonic signal when activated and are dark when disconnected. As in "dark fiber".
Re:Should journalists understand what they write? (Score:5, Insightful)
... I wouldn't have known that the article I was reading was even remotely linked to the case I had spent the day watching. It was that far removed from reality.
Try listening to a Congressional hearing on C-SPAN and then read whatever the newspapers write about it the next day.
It's like someone condensed War and Peace into Goodnight Moon.
Re:Glad someone said it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The jargon of today is - in theory - the plainspeak of tomorrow.
I know of no such theory that would make that claim. Doctors have had a jargon for as long as there have been doctors, and while SOME of their terms have made it into common language, most have not.
If readers (and listeners) take some time on the front end to learn the terms, they will have an easier time in the long run.
No, they won't. Just what terms do you think someone who is going to see is doctor is supposed to front load into his brain? Just which of the tens of thousands of medical terms will you need today? How about learning the jargon in today's newspaper? Got a clue, before you try reading the article, what's going to be there? Nope.
Jargon is used between people who know the terms. If you know one party doesn't know them, jargon is not appropriate. Especially for a journalist whose job is to explain things to normal people.
So let's all communicate like 7th graders, instead of educating people to the 12th grade.
I didn't say that and you know it. Let's communicate with our intended audiences so they understand what we are saying, not leave them stuck running for the dictionary because we're too erudite to actually communicate. When you say "I ordered a PRI T1 line to replace your SLIP over 56k modem, Gramma", you aren't educating her, you're leaving her behind deliberately.
The author's point, which is spot on, is that dumbing things down has created a general sentiment that jargon is hard.
Some of it is. Do you deny that? Some of it takes advanced education to understand, or depends on knowing so many other things that you aren't going to pick it up just because yuo saw the word on the front page. There's a reason why they don't cover calculus in fifth grade, or nuclear reactor engineering in ninth.
What is the purpose of a journalist writing an article in a newspaper about a technical subject? Is it to teach all the readers that subject, or teach them all the jargon? No. Of course not. It's to convey information. If your reader is a layman, use layman language. You'll save time and not drive your readers away. You're competing for his time, and you'll lose as soon as you lose him. Write an article that's too hard to understand because you're using jargon and the first reaction will be "turn the page", not "find a dictionary".
A T1 can be copper or optical,
You've just proven my point. "T1: [pcmag.com] A T1 line uses two wire pairs (one for transmit, one for receive) and time division multiplexing (TDM) to interleave 24 64-Kbps voice or data channels. The standard T1 frame is 193 bits long, which holds 24 8-bit voice samples and one synchronization bit with 8,000 frames transmitted per second. T1 is not restricted to digital voice or to 64 Kbps data streams. Channels may be combined and the total 1.544 Mbps capacity can be broken up as required." No mention of fiber. It's jargon. Your definition isn't the same as someone else's. You caused confusion instead of clearing it up. And people who don't deal with it on a regular basis aren't going to know what T1 is, so that point still stands. You say "meat vindaloo, please", to one of the Indian tech support high-schoolers, and you get dog instead of beef because "we" don't know that "meat" mean beef at all. Your problem, not mine.
Yes, let's all use jargon when we don't need to.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop reveling in your ignorance. Technical terms exist to differentiate between similar ideas that have important differences. That you don't know what those differences are does not mean that they're not important.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd prefer that modern journalists embrace journalism. You know, do some research for a story and make some effort to write in a grammatically correct fashion. My high school journalism teacher would have given an F grade to the majority of stories I see in leading publications today. Its sad how far this profession has spiraled down the toilet.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
One has to assume a baseline of understanding with one's readers. Take it as a given that a journalist is a competent user of the English language*, and also take it as a given that basic research has pulled together information for a story*, but the jargon used by specialists is about 50/50 worth using or explaining. This guy is out of his gourd if he wants everyone everywhere to either understand industry-specific jargon or STFU. If a researcher can't explain his shit without jargon, then he probably doesn't have a good grasp of it himself. I mean, Einstein explained relativity with both raw math and simple analogies. If you've got something more complicated than relativity to explain and you can't do it without jargon, then fine. But if you're worried about having to use an extra eight words to explain your protein concoction, the, well, the STFU is on you.
*I realize that this is not always the case.
Re:The use of jargons (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to using it sparingly, I would insist that a writer use jargon correctly, or not at all.
We live in an online world. If a journalist uses some term I'm not familiar with, I can Google/Wikipedia it. If I'm looking something up every other sentence, or the results I find don't match up with the article's usage, well ...