Does journalism mean never having to check your facts?

If I was a journalist, a look at Language Log would probably terrify me out of ever writing about language research. One can't even fabricate a story about telepathic talking parrots anymore.

This morning, Semantic Compositions featured an article from the Boston Globe, which launched him off about the prescriptive/descriptive debate. Mark Liberman, however, sat down with a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, and just demolished the prescriptive case being made. SC envies Prof. Liberman the time necessary to compile such a post, but feels obliged to answer his rhetorical question: "Can't anybody use a dictionary anymore?"

Of course, not, Professor. If they did, that would waste time devoted to a perfectly good rant. Why do the hard work when your Ph.D. in cracker barrel studies can be had with just the submission of an opinion? It's getting clear that the problem with journalists is not so much fundamental dishonesty as an arrogant refusal to seriously engage the ideas they're trying to write about, which would require an effort they never made in college. And they're not about to start now.

Comments

[NW]

The time necessary to compile such an argument is pretty minimal. It's about the time needed for the steam to stop coming out of your ears at moronic opinionating; and many a time I've reacted with an instant 'this is utter garbage' and gone to my Greek, Middle English, or whatever dictionaries in the course of compiling a rant. That half hour's venting just might help someone somewhere.

[Semantic Compositions]

It's not the thinking, it's the typing. I don't know if Prof. Liberman is able to cut and paste all that from an electronic OED. If he is, no big deal. If he's not...SC is getting carpal tunnel just thinking about all that typing...

[language hat]

Like Mark, I cut and paste from the online OED. Otherwise it would be way too much effort.