On the Dumbing of Society, Part Fifty-Seven.
I am getting really tired of journalists who can't write.
My current bugaboo? The use of constructions which, while being grammatically correct and indeed true, attempt to apply non-existent breadth to accomplishments. I'm using football examples because that's what set me off, but the concept applies to everything.
1) "Troy became just the second team to win four straight Sun Belt Conference titles, following North Texas, who won four straight from 2001-2004."
Now, this example requires some background to understand; the Sun Belt has only been competing in football since 2001. That means North Texas won the first four titles, and Troy has won the last four, with one other team (Arkansas State) sneaking in to win the 2005 title. The problem here is simple. Using the word "just" carries with it a connotation that it's possible for this to have happened more than twice. Since last time I checked 3x4=12 and 12<9, it's not.
Now, if you eliminate the word "just" the sentence is fine. The problem is that the writer has used the word to try and make the achievement seem more impressive than it already is by painting it as a rarity.
2) "The Aggies qualified for their first bowl appearance since 2007 after beating Baylor on Saturday."
God, the misplaced connotational usage of the word "since" frustrates me. See, the whole prepositional phrase in the middle is pointless and annoying. "Oh, my god, I haven't had steak since the day before yesterday!" I mean, come on, people. I could see phrasing the sentence this way: "The Aggies qualified after beating Baylor on Saturday, after failing to qualify for a bowl last season." Again, the original sentence as written is technically true; it is their first bowl appearance since 2007. But phrasing it this way implies that there's been some long absence involved here when it's not the case. Phrasing it the way I did, however, highlights the anomaly rather than the routine. The "story" here isn't that the Aggies have suffered some painful bowl drought, but that they've recovered from a one-year blip.
Had the Aggies missed out on a bowl for two or more consecutive seasons, then the sentence as written would be acceptable... at least in the case of Texas A&M, or any other college whose football team routinely earns a bowl invitation. On the other hand, this phrasing is also misused in reverse as well.
Vanderbilt, for example, went to a bowl game last season for the first time since 1982. (See, that phrasing is relevant and correct. 27 years = long time. You're trying to express a drought.) Vanderbilt won't be going to a bowl this year, though, and let's assume they'll continue to be a mediocre team for the purposes of this discussion. In that event, any use of the construct "Vanderbilt hasn't been to a bowl game since 2008" would be ridiculous for the next several years. In this case, use of the phrasing would imply to the reader that going to bowl games used to be something routine for Vanderbilt, when their 2008 appearance is actually the anomaly. The writer should be highlighting the uniqueness of Vanderbilt's 2008 appearance rather than the (utterly non-)uniqueness of their absence since. Saying "Vanderbilt has made only one bowl appearance since 1982" expresses the point the writer should be getting at much more clearly.
Non-football examples: "Inglourious Basterds was Brad Pitt's first role since his Oscar-nominated performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Look, when an actor finishes one movie and then starts another, this phrasing is ridiculous. For fuck's sake, he hardly even took any time off. Now, if it's 2004 and you say "Saw is Danny Glover's first film role since 2002's The Royal Tenenbaums", then you're on the right track; you're noting that he didn't have any film roles in 2003.
"Obama became the first Democrat elected President since Bill Clinton." True, but stupid, yes? "Clinton became the first Democrat elected to two terms as President since FDR", on the other hand... that makes sense.
Writers, take heed: learn how to use "since" properly for the intended effect. It's not that your usage is grammatically incorrect; it's just stupid.
My current bugaboo? The use of constructions which, while being grammatically correct and indeed true, attempt to apply non-existent breadth to accomplishments. I'm using football examples because that's what set me off, but the concept applies to everything.
1) "Troy became just the second team to win four straight Sun Belt Conference titles, following North Texas, who won four straight from 2001-2004."
Now, this example requires some background to understand; the Sun Belt has only been competing in football since 2001. That means North Texas won the first four titles, and Troy has won the last four, with one other team (Arkansas State) sneaking in to win the 2005 title. The problem here is simple. Using the word "just" carries with it a connotation that it's possible for this to have happened more than twice. Since last time I checked 3x4=12 and 12<9, it's not.
Now, if you eliminate the word "just" the sentence is fine. The problem is that the writer has used the word to try and make the achievement seem more impressive than it already is by painting it as a rarity.
2) "The Aggies qualified for their first bowl appearance since 2007 after beating Baylor on Saturday."
God, the misplaced connotational usage of the word "since" frustrates me. See, the whole prepositional phrase in the middle is pointless and annoying. "Oh, my god, I haven't had steak since the day before yesterday!" I mean, come on, people. I could see phrasing the sentence this way: "The Aggies qualified after beating Baylor on Saturday, after failing to qualify for a bowl last season." Again, the original sentence as written is technically true; it is their first bowl appearance since 2007. But phrasing it this way implies that there's been some long absence involved here when it's not the case. Phrasing it the way I did, however, highlights the anomaly rather than the routine. The "story" here isn't that the Aggies have suffered some painful bowl drought, but that they've recovered from a one-year blip.
Had the Aggies missed out on a bowl for two or more consecutive seasons, then the sentence as written would be acceptable... at least in the case of Texas A&M, or any other college whose football team routinely earns a bowl invitation. On the other hand, this phrasing is also misused in reverse as well.
Vanderbilt, for example, went to a bowl game last season for the first time since 1982. (See, that phrasing is relevant and correct. 27 years = long time. You're trying to express a drought.) Vanderbilt won't be going to a bowl this year, though, and let's assume they'll continue to be a mediocre team for the purposes of this discussion. In that event, any use of the construct "Vanderbilt hasn't been to a bowl game since 2008" would be ridiculous for the next several years. In this case, use of the phrasing would imply to the reader that going to bowl games used to be something routine for Vanderbilt, when their 2008 appearance is actually the anomaly. The writer should be highlighting the uniqueness of Vanderbilt's 2008 appearance rather than the (utterly non-)uniqueness of their absence since. Saying "Vanderbilt has made only one bowl appearance since 1982" expresses the point the writer should be getting at much more clearly.
Non-football examples: "Inglourious Basterds was Brad Pitt's first role since his Oscar-nominated performance in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Look, when an actor finishes one movie and then starts another, this phrasing is ridiculous. For fuck's sake, he hardly even took any time off. Now, if it's 2004 and you say "Saw is Danny Glover's first film role since 2002's The Royal Tenenbaums", then you're on the right track; you're noting that he didn't have any film roles in 2003.
"Obama became the first Democrat elected President since Bill Clinton." True, but stupid, yes? "Clinton became the first Democrat elected to two terms as President since FDR", on the other hand... that makes sense.
Writers, take heed: learn how to use "since" properly for the intended effect. It's not that your usage is grammatically incorrect; it's just stupid.