KNOWING WHAT`S WHAT AND WHAT`S NOT
THE 5 W`S (AND 1 "H") OF CYBERSPACE
In journalism, the Five W's (also known as the Five W's (and one H), or Six W's) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering. It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five W's (and one H) is that for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions, each of which comprises an interrogative word:
- Who is it about?
- What happened (what's the story)?
- When did it take place?
- Where did it take place?
- Why did it happen?
- How did it happen?
GOOGLE DEFINE
"(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."
from George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
Political blogs examples
WEASEL WORDS
Puffery
legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...
Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
Contentious labels
cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
Unsupported attributions
... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven .Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.
Expressions of doubt
... supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
Synonyms for said
... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.
Euphemisms
... passed away, gave his life, resting place, make love, an issue with, collateral damage, ethnic cleansing, living with cancer, sightless, people with blindness ...The word died is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms such as resting place. Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute, nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.
Clichés and idioms
... lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...
Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, or two-thirds. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the small portion evident conveys the substance without gilding the lily. People in Wikipedia articles do not take the plunge, they simply do things. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded.
Relative time references
... recently, lately, presently, formerly, in the past, winter, spring, summer, fall, autumn ...Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Don't say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in April 2010 showed that Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January." When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline. Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months or globally applicable terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest).
Video Example of Weasel Words
LEGAL ISSUES ONLINE
Defamation:
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.
Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."
Slander:
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.
The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.
Libel:
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.
Language and Grammar online services
Other Resources:
- KCNN - Legal Risks
No comments:
Post a Comment