In these parlous times, the media would do well to use words correctly, especially when incorrect usage is alarmist rather than calming. Since, you know, there is a bit of a surplus of alarmism just now.
This has been especially true, it seems to us, of the word “rate,” which is best understood as “rate of change” but which is often used to describe “increase in absolute quantity.” See, for example, this bit of click-baiting that popped up in our inbox moments ago:
A quick examination of the “trends” tab at the Texas Covid-19 dashboard shows rather clearly that the rates of change of both infection and death — the point of the sub-headline — are actually declining. Yeah, sure, the absolute numbers are increasing and will for a while, but the rates of change are in evident decline. The words “rates” and “increase” need to maintain social distance for the headline to be even remotely true.
So, basically, the headline writer is either lying, presumably to bait clicks, or doesn’t understand rate of change. Given the constant public discussion about “flattening the curve” it seems a little late in this cataclysm for the latter to be true.
While we are often pedantic — more, certainly than is healthy for us — this is an important substantive point. If the journalism class wants to recover even a bit of its squandered prestige and bolster its now laughable claim that it performs an essential social function, it needs to start using words carefully to communicate rather than to stoke rage and fear.
No Comments