Should Journalists Embrace Jargon?

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.'"

Comments

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yes.

[pete6677]

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.

[mmarlett]

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:Yes.

[theshowmecanuck]

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*

ha ha ha.... ho ho.... hee hee hee hee hee.... oh man... have you read a newspaper lately or watched the news? [wipes laughter induced tear from eye]

Re:Yes.

[azalin]

If you've got something more complicated than relativity to explain ...

Like women? Well actually people in general.

Re:Yes.

[RaceProUK]

Did you not read his footnote? The one where he admits that not all journalists can use English or do basic research?

Yes, absolutely

[the_humeister]

But first, please stop using "God particle", which is not jargon. It is just stupid.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Sir_Sri]

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.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better than "Cloud" or "Web 2.0".

Re:Yes, absolutely

[khallow]

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.

That seems a bad example. The credit default swaps and some other financial instruments are moderately hard to explain, but the real problems such as extremely high leverage and systemic risk aren't that complicated.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Tr3vin]

"God particle" comes from Leon Lederman. He wanted to nickname the Higgs boson the "goddamn particle", but was blocked by his editor. So while it is annoying, it did come from a prominent physicist.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Darinbob]

It was originally the "god damn particle" because it was so elusive but the journal editor suggested it be changed. Then after being shorted it applied a level of unintended importance when described by journalists.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[amRadioHed]

But "God particle" and "goddamn particle" are not the same. While "goddamn particle" came from a prominent physicist, the actual name that people use in the media came from the editor of a prominent physicist and the bowdlerized word has none of the same connotations as the original.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Crypto Gnome]

Oh Yeah - God Particle is SUCH a wonderful term - pity the journo-drones don't actually understand what they're saying.

A particle is a piece of a thing.

So A God Particle would be A PIECE OF GOD.

Insert mentally-deficient worship here.

Anyhow, this being /. what everyone here is *really* interested in finding is the Oh God! particle.

(disclaimer: in the interest of retaining a G rating in this post I have not included the usually obligatory clicky-linky. It's safe to assume that everyone here has a large collection of same already.)

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Tr3vin]

A particle is a piece of a thing.

So A God Particle would be A PIECE OF GOD.

Insert mentally-deficient worship here.

This may explain the obesity problem in America, especially in the midwest . People are trying to add a bit more God to their lives.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[arth1]

A particle is a piece of a thing.

Not when it's a wave.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Sir_Sri]

That's more financial sector than economic. What (if anything) should the government be doing to get us out of this economic crisis now that it's here is a huge question. And the moment you start using nonsense jargon like saltwater vs freshwater economics people (probably rightfully) tune you out, but then if you can't talk about nominal vs PPP debt, real versus nominal interest rates and so on you can't even start to have a discussion.

If you look at the serious economic problem of the day, which is greek and spanish debt, concepts like nominal wage rigidity and internal devaluation are central to understanding why austerity is a disaster for them (it's bad and wrong for everyone else right now too, but when they're trapped in the EURO without a fiscal union they're in particularly bad shape).

Re:Yes, absolutely

[mathfeel]

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.

The difference is as follow: in proper scientific papers and textbooks, the said gravitationally collapsed objects are actually called "blackhole". It is not a term exclusively for layman. Physicists are actually very good at naming important things (unlike in biology and medicine): black hole, dark matter, dark energy, red dwarf, photon, etc. Only when things become hardly distinguishable that physicists give them boring names: muon, tauon, pion, etc. Unless "god" actually can convey some distinguishing physical properties, it is not suited for a physics name.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Oligonicella]

"Physicists are actually very good at naming important things."

Up, down, top, bottom, strange, charm - these are called "flavors".

Re:Yes, absolutely

[azalin]

Wasn't it actually a physicist who named it the "god damned" particle and later shortened it because he could really publish it that way? Or is that just a funny anecdote spread for the sake of hilarity?

Re:Yes, absolutely

[TheRaven64]

The credit default swaps and some other financial instruments are moderately hard to explain

Stephanie Flanders and Robert Preston have both done a good job in their BBC blogs. And they usually structure their articles with some definitions and background at the top, then the news part after the first subheading. If you're familiar with the background (i.e. you read their last few articles on related subjects) then you can skip the first few paragraphs. I usually now start in the middle, and if I found something I didn't understand go back to the top and read the bit where they explain it. It's a shame that they don't make more use of hypertext: it's pretty trivial to just link jargon terms to a definition on first use...

Re:Yes, absolutely

[khallow]

but then if you can't talk about nominal vs PPP debt, real versus nominal interest rates and so on you can't even start to have a discussion.

[...]

concepts like nominal wage rigidity and internal devaluation are central to understanding why austerity is a disaster for them

And all those concepts have simple explanations. I don't see the argument at all. Either explain the concept as you use it for the first time (which is the usual approach), or including a glossary, if you have a lot of such concepts present.

That's more financial sector than economic.

And yet, that financial sector has profound economic consequences. As to Greece, the problem may be difficult to describe, but the solution isn't: get them off the Euro or pay off or absolve enough of their debt that they're no longer hurting. They've already indicated that they aren't interested in any degree of austerity which would be the third choice at this point.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[SandorZoo]

Anyhow, this being /. what everyone here is *really* interested in finding is the Oh God! particle.

It's close cousin, the Oh-my-God particle has already already been found

Re:Yes, absolutely

[coastwalker]

A-hem. I think you are discussing "Quantum Particle", that's something distinct from a "Particle" or a "Wave". Just thought I'd help you out with the jargon there. A quick google gets you this to explain http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2011/06/10/why-a-quantum-particle-is-not-like-a-water-drop-a-tale-of-two-slits-part-1/

Re:Yes, absolutely

[mcgrew]

The "god particle" came from the researchers, who, having a hard time finding it, called it the "God damned particle" and the MSM censors shortened it to "God Particle".

But I do agree with you, its name is Higg's Boson. That's what it should be called.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Sir_Sri]

They've already indicated that they aren't interested in any degree of austerity

actually the evidence is that austerity is making the situation worse, and that's why they are in this mess, and the fact that it's wrong policy is why they have a lot of people who don't want to go along with it. Austerity isn't a viable option, but it's the one germany has been pushing on them.

And yes, those concepts might have simple explanations, but if you bury a document in 1000 explanations it becomes unintelligible, hence the debate over the value of jargon.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Sir_Sri]

probably conveys the concept reasonably well.

which is why we use it in science.

Physicists *try* and come up with good names for things, hence 'atoms' as my example, but well, they get it wrong occasionally too.

Probably the most egregious example is spin in quantum mechanics. Which isn't actually spin, but they thought it was spin because it was kind of like spin. But it isn't. That drove a lot of my 3rd year classmates a bit nuts.

Physics does require you have very precisely chosen language for different things, and it's where confusing 'force' 'momentum' and 'energy' the way a jargon free article can really messes you up. But sometimes their language leads you astray (black holes emit xrays apparently, despite the implication that black holes never emitted anything, x rays aren't in any way related to the letter x, we just use 'x' because that happened to be a convenient unknown kind of thing).

Re:Yes, absolutely

[khallow]

actually the evidence is that austerity is making the situation worse, and that's why they are in this mess,

The situation preceded austerity. Greece didn't get into the situation it is now in because someone decided to implement a policy of austerity. It got there with bad spending policies (and a wide variety of pretty stupid regulation and taxation).

For me, a good analogy is work. Most jobs vary in how much work you have to do. Some days are easier and less demanding than other days. Suppose even on the easier days, you have to go all out 100% effort. Where's the reserve to handle the hard days? It doesn't exist and you fail to do part of your job on the bad days, having to drop some of the things you're supposed to do. (You also burn out fast, but that's not really a good part of the analogy for my purposes.)

Greece was a country without a reserve. It spent like a drunk sailor even during the best of times. When things got bad, well, they didn't have any more to spend. Austerity is the result, if they want to stay in the EU game. Without that, there's no guarantee that they won't economically fail over and over again, costing the rest of the EU states dearly.

Frankly, I'd have booted them from the EU when they turned away from austerity. But I gather some parts of the EU are reluctant to let go of member states even when they're bad actors like Greece.

Re:Yes, absolutely

[Jessified]

On the other hand, authors and journalists need to really ask themselves if jargon is necessary to adequately convey the idea. If simple/accessible language is sufficient to explain a concept, then the only reason to use jargon is ego. Efficient and accurate communication of ideas is the job of a writer, and unnecessarily requiring readers to reach for the dictionary every three words is poor communication. For example, "erudite" was clearly used here, likely to make a point, because it is a word that many readers here had to look up. Other words could have adequately communicated the meaning of the sentence without impeding comprehension or precision.

You can be articulate without a thesaurus. Otherwise you wind up sounding like this: https://xkcd.com/451

Link to article

[mt42]

Link to Nature article http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/487407a (no paywall).

Balance

[Anrego]

Depends on the audience that the thing you want to say.

The first two categories are obvious:
Complex concept to aimed at people in the field: jargon away
Simple concept aimed at general audience: minimal jargon, spell out the stuff you do use

The other two categories are tricky, and in my opinion, in extreme cases, shouldn't be attempted.

Trying to write too much stuff to a differing audience results in something that is mostly useless for both. We see this all the time in software. People try to write up a design spec / user manual / whatever aimed at everyone from the customers to the project manager to the team lead to the coders who will implement it. All those people require very different information for different purposes and operate with a different vocabulary. You end up with something too technical for the customer, to "clean" for the project manager, and too verbose/lacking of details for the coders.

Better approach is to just make seperate documents.. you actually end up saving more time and a lot saner in my opinion.. and you produce something useful (which is always nice).

Re:Balance

[c0lo]

The other two categories are tricky, and in my opinion, in extreme cases, shouldn't be attempted.

Trying to write too much stuff to a differing audience results in something that is mostly useless for both. We see this all the time in software. People try to write up a design spec / user manual / whatever aimed at everyone from the customers to the project manager to the team lead to the coders who will implement it.

Methinks you are being too specific to "PM/customer/coder in software industry". Let's try a generalization/particularization exercise:
PM = policy makers - e.g. elected politicians
customer = beneficiary party - e.g. citizens
coder = executive/providing party - e.g. govt, juridical system, etc

Now: which ones should be "spared of jargon" and the society (in its entirety or in parts) can still be "blissfully ignorant but still safe"?

Re:Balance

[fermion]

I would also say it depends on what the author understands. A simple example is the word paradigm. For scientists this has a specific meaning. Many writers who use this word have clue of the how to use it in the sense that it compresses communication, rather using it to indicate they have some knowledge of how scientists might speak.

Vocabulary is an issue in any writing and always depends on the knowledge of the writer and the audience. Jargon is just a instance, almost a trivial instance. In general selecting a word is a compromise between norrowing meaning and comprehension of the audience. Suppose I were writing about someone and I wanted make a clear instance of relationship. There was a time when, if I assumed I were writing for an education audience, I might be able to leave the confines of english and use conocer or saber. For a naive audience, the meaning will be lost, but to a more sophisticated audience the hair is split.

My point is two fold. If the writer is knowledgeable enough to use jargon is a precise sense, then there is every reason to use this jargon. In most cases where I see objection to jargon it is where the writer is merely trying to show a broad vocabulary and in the process creating a jumbled and inaccurate mess. Given that the writer can use the words correctly to correctly communicate the correct idea, then the question becomes can the audience be brought along to understand the underlying concepts, if they do not, and is the piece of writing the appropriate place to so do.

Should journalists understand what they write?

[Agent.Nihilist]

Should journalists understand what they write?
I mean really, what possible purpose could understanding the topic of conversation possibly contribute?

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[Mitreya]

I mean really, what possible purpose could understanding the topic of conversation possibly contribute?

Nothing at all, clearly.
The debate about "truth vigilantism" taught me that much.

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[Mashiki]

Yes. It would help. Ever been to court? I mean either to watch a case, or in a legal capacity. It's a general question not directed at you. I have on several occasions, if I hadn't been in the court, then reading the news paper the following day, 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.

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[rmdingler]

Prolly as useless as RTFA.

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[postbigbang]

We ask journalists to do quite a bit; some are faithful and truthful, others are not. Sometimes, even those that are trustworthy screw up. They're human, after all.

But vocabulary, especially jargon, is important and is used to convey deeper meaning-- if the audience can understand it. A target audience of engineers is different than a target audience of salespeople, third graders, and aircraft mechanics (no slime intended).

Jargon is mandatory to convey meaning to the target audience's understanding. Jargon not normally within their vocabulary might as well be fog, because it will convey no discernible information.

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[TubeSteak]

... 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:Should journalists understand what they write?

[theshowmecanuck]

Personally I think scientists and especially computer scientists use too much jargon and double speak. Often to make their papers and documentation sound more scholarly as if it implies they are any smarter. Sure some jargon is needed, but only if regular speak can't provide explanation. And normal language can be used to explain a lot. Hell, English has over 100,000 words. They don't have to keep making up new ones. I think people are more intelligent if they can explain 99% of what they need to without spiralling into jingoistic, jargon laden, jaw breaking, mind numbing, mumbo jumbo double speak industry babble. Is that clear?

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[qubezz]

As someone whom has published computer science papers (if you count papers on rendering techniques as computer science), I can say the jargon isn't to make it sound more scholarly. It's more that we take for granted that anyone whom is interested in applying the contents of the paper would already have an understanding of the jargon. The jargon serves two purposes, it takes an otherwise vague statement and makes it specific while at the same time shorting the statement to fit inside of a sentence instead of a set of sentences.

Free quotemod.

This seems to be how the word "jargon" is itself is defined by journalists: words that know-it-all eggheads use.

How scientists would define "jargon" though: technical and field-specific vocabulary necessary to communicating fundamental and core concepts, often concepts that lay-persons and ASU journalism frat boys who cheated their way through algebra can not fathom.

People don't like those smarter than them. The subconscious mind will play tricks to maintain one's sense of self-value, one of these tricks is to devalue others and the work they do, and using the word "jargon" to deprecate the apparently incomprehensible vocabulary used in a specialized field is such an example. If reporting science "news", then it will likely be news for those in the field too, and should be written so it is not talking down. Journalists should especially avoid the danger of attempting to spell out to the lay person concepts they don't understand themselves, lest you get insulting and just plain wrong dreck such as the History Channel's The Universe episode "Extreme Energy", which was unwatchable.

Re:Should journalists understand what they write?

[theshowmecanuck]

I tend to tip the scales with Occam. And the simplest solution here is: If you can't wow them with your brains, baffle them with bullshit. I too have written my fair share of scientific write ups in the past and also documented a great deal of computer code. I have also edited others work. Most of the time people try to baffle others with bullshit because they are too lazy to explain themselves in English.

Glad someone said it.

[thesameguy]

I am totally behind this. The reason we have jargon and technical terms in the first place is specificity, and failure to use these specially created words and phrases only causes confusion and false understandings. Investing some time on the front end so you can have an easier conversation in a couple months always pays off. We somehow managed to learn that meat could be chicken, beef, or pork, how come we can't learn that T1 could be PRI, DIA, or dark?

Re:Glad someone said it.

[__aaltlg1547]

But often jargon is completely opaque or worse because it often uses words that mean something different in conventional use than in science. Bur many ideas can barely be described at all without the appropriate jargon.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Anrego]

Comes down to audience and how much investment in time said audience is willing to make.

If it is a casual interest article, I'm probably not looking to learn a whole new vocabulary.. I'm looking for enough information to facilitate the value I hope to get out of it. As a trade off for this accessibility, I accept that I'm not getting the full story.

On the other hand if I am reading to learn something, then yeah, give me a quick overview of the jargon and then go nuts. You lose a lot of information trying to explain things with analogies and common phrasing .. and if I'm really trying to get something, I accept that I have to educate myself a little on the language that is to be used.

At the very least, keeping in mind who the audience is and what you are actually trying to drive home is important. When you try to write something to please everyone you usually end up with something that doesn't do the job for anyone.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Obfuscant]

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:Glad someone said it.

[thesameguy]

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 jargon of today is - in theory - the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason the masses use words like "hard drive" and "engine" are because people in the past realized the best way to talk about a mechanical device that stores information or a construct that converts energy into motion was to use the jargon employed by people in a specific field. The author's point, which is spot on, is that dumbing things down has created a general sentiment that jargon is hard. If people stop learning the jargon for things, not only does communication become time consuming but it also becomes error-prone as people try to describe a thing based on their perception of its function rather than using a term which is concise.

Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language?

The doctor should use the medical jargon, and if I don't understand s/he can either define the terms, or I can look them up later. That is exactly the point of the article. 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. To use your specific example, do you want the doctor to tell you that you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which is going to make it easier for you to learn more about your problem? If the common sentiment is "plain English" then peoples' abilities to learn more are compromised.

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.

Got it. So let's all communicate like 7th graders, instead of educating people to the 12th grade. In fact, let's go a step further and deprive people of the jargon, speak "plain English," and deprive the 7th graders of the possibility of becoming 12th graders. Great solution. Go humanity.

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".

Your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is defined by a line modulation that produces a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate. A T1 can be copper or optical, and a physical optical cable connected to T1 signalling equipment that is not powered up, is dark.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[thesameguy]

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 jargon of today is the plainspeak of tomorrow. The reason common people use words like hard drive and engine are because they realized the best way to talk about a technical device was to use the concise word or phrase that best describes it. The author's point was that journalists choosing to use "plain English" has created or is creating a sentiment amongst the masses that jargon is hard and should be avoided. That is a dangerous sentiment. When people decide it's easiest to stop learning new words, communication becomes slow and error-prone.

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?

I would absolutely prefer he use the jargon. If I don't understand a term I can ask him to define it, or look it up later. In 2012 there is even less of a reason to not use jargon than ever before. If you don't understand a word, highlight it and look it up. It's not tough. It's not like reading a newspaper fifty years ago when understanding exactly what the difference between fusion and fission took a trip to the library. To use your own example, let me ask you this: Would you rather be told you have "a heart condition" or "cardiomyopathy?" Which of those is going to get you answers about your affliction more quickly?

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.

Got it. So rather than educate people to the 12th grade, we will all communicate as 7th graders. In fact, we will go so far as to deprive people of the ability to be 12th graders by withholding "confusing jargon" and speaking complete in "plain English." Great solution. Go humanity.

For many people "meat" means dog, cat, snake, horse, and a host of other things.

Exactly, which is why we use dog, cat, snake, horse and not "meat," We are using the most specific term available to reduce confusion. That's why "we" went a step further and have ham and bacon, and not just pork.

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".

By the way, your understanding of T1 is questionable. T1 is a signalling method used to produce a 1.544 Mbit/s line rate and has nothing to do with the line over which the signal travels. T1 can be optical or copper, and an optical line with T1 signalling equipment at each end that is not powered up is dark.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Obfuscant]

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: 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:Glad someone said it.

[dbIII]

True, and here's a good example.
Geophysicists find oil with vibrators.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[dbIII]

Even refering to a T1 line is questionable if you are writing to an international audience.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[bbartlog]

But the problem is that *because* the use of jargon implies that the speaker has mastered some technical and difficult subject, there is an incentive to use (even invent) jargon when it is totally unnecessary, just for the extra cred. Your doctor examples kind of suggest this. Other good medical examples are 'cryptogenic' or 'of unknown etiology', fancy ways of saying we don't know what caused it. There's also jargon as a way of signaling group membership, but that's a whole other can of worms. Maybe that's not even technically jargon.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[thesameguy]

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.

What does "common language" have to do with anything? I'm a technical guy, but I don't use technical terms "commonly." I use them when they are appropriate, such as discussing technical things. And if I'm talking about a medical condition, even though I am not a doctor, I am going to use technical terms that I know, as best I know how to use them. If I use a term incorrectly, or the doctor uses a term I don't understand, I'm going to ask for an explanation or look it up later. It's not difficult. What's difficult is having a useful conversation or worse yet relaying useful information when people refuse to use the words best suited for the conversation. Your example of "meat vindaloo" below is exactly an example of that. Why would I use a vague or general term when a specific term exists that does the job better?

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.

You are being obtuse and you know it. I was not suggesting people memorize the dictionary prior to picking up a news article, I was suggesting people have a dictionary handy when reading one. There is nothing new here - didn't they teach you that in English 101? Turns out not everyone knows the meaning of every word, and intentionally using the most simplistic terms possible to ensure people understand the words at the expense of the meaning is ridiculous. In 2012 when learning the definition of a word or phrase is a mouse click away, there is less a reason now than ever not to be specific.

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.

You did say that, exactly. You said the average person reads at the 7th grade level, let's talk to them as such. I am proposing we talk to them at a 12th grade level, and let them get a little smarter than they were before. It sickens me to the core that anyone would accept the notion that dumbing down mass communication serves any other purpose than selling magazines and newspapers. It certainly doesn't actually made them smarter.

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.

My Grandma would smack you for that remark, and so would everyone in my family save my drunken uncle. My grandmother may or may not know what those terms you used are, but she wouldn't look too kindly on me talking down to her. If she has a question about the terms I used or how I used them, she'll ask. Even at her advanced age, dismissing her with "I got you a faster internet connection and that's all you need to know" is nothing but condescension. She is old, not dumb. (She would also probably also ask why you you channelized a data connection, which is in fact dumb.)

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".

So you are a publisher! Explains your bent. Get readers at all costs! How about this: We don't treat people like they're 7th graders for a while, and then find out once people are used to some hard to digest words now and again, we throw more at then, and eventually they are 12th graders! Kind

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Chuck Chunder]

So, based on those two reasons, the answer is "NO", the journalist's job in conveying the information to his readers includes translating jargon.

I think it is also their job to introduce jargon to the reader in an accessible fashion. The readers relationship with the information doesn't necessarily stop with the article, it can be a door to finding out more so introducing the jargon in an accessible way is useful.

Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language?

Again, I think you want both. You want both understanding and precision. My father in law has just had some sort of stroke like thing. We gather (he lives elsewhere) that it is not actually a stroke but something quite a bit like one. If we had the medical term a spot of research would get us up to speed. As it is we don't really know what his prospects are and may need to take him to a doctor again ourselves. The "jargon" has been translated for us by the person sitting between us and the expert but information has been lost in that process and we can't recover it because we don't have the jargon to refer back to.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[azalin]

Must ... not ... take ... bait.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[__aaltlg1547]

It might be good to avoid jargon in headlines for the above-illustrated reason.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Obfuscant]

What does "common language" have to do with anything?

You said "plainspeak". That's the common language.

Your claim that jargon becomes common language is patently false, except for those things that enter the general population anyway. Computers are pretty common today, "hard disk" followed them into the public consumption. "Dyspnea" is doctor-speak, and unless you have it or are in the medical professions it is unlikely that jargon will have made it into "plainspeak". "T1", even though computers have become common, is still jargon that most people don't know, including, according to you, the people at PC Magazine.

You said the average person reads at the 7th grade level, let's talk to them as such.

No, I did not. I said that a journalist (the topic of this discussion) should write to the level of his audience, which for public consumption is 7th grade level. A TEACHER should elevate the grade levels; a journalist's job is to inform, not teach. There is a difference.

So you are a publisher! Explains your bent.

And what explains your insulting attitude? No, I'm not a publisher. I'm talking about JOURNALISTS, who WORK FOR A LIVING. If their articles aren't read then they aren't doing their job and they get fired. Why would any publisher pay a journalist who writes articles that the readers can't deal with? In fact, why would a publisher keep a journalist on staff that can't write an article that the publisher himself can understand? You expect a publisher to sit down with his paper every day and pull out a dictionary (which are notoriously bad for defining jargon) to look up all the 'hard words'? Right. The publisher is going to send the article back and say "our audience won't understand that, explain it better". Or he'll redline the paragraph and save the column inches.

I have indeed. You are a 7th grader.

And you are an insulting idiot. My "grade level" has nothing to do with this. I showed you the definition from a technical site for a piece of jargon that we were debating, and it clearly did not match your definition. That's where a common person is going to go when they want to see what you mean when you drop the term "T1" on them, and it doesn't say what you claim it means. YOU say that it it their responsibility to learn about the terms you use so they can understand what you write; it is clear that you are not using the terms the same way they are defined by others, and that makes pushing the onus for figuring it out back onto you.

Jargon belongs where people understand it already. Making your readers (as a journalist) work harder because you were too lazy to speak to them in a way they can understand means YOU are wrong, not them. They pay your salary to convey information. You failed. You're fired.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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"?

None of those words qualify as jargon.

They're long established, "standard" English words, used in a standard way, and found without trouble in the dictionary. Even if he doesn't know offhand what those mean, anyone who's grown up speaking English and has a reasonable level of education (high school graduate) should be able to discern the meanings without much trouble, based on their parts, which are all quite common and should be easily recognisable:

subaerial = sub + aerial = under + air = (on) land

subaqueous = sub + aqu(a) + (e)ous = under + water + [common ending for adjectives] (Think "submarine" or "subway", and "aquarium".) (Although I believe "subaquatic" is more common.)

anthropogenic = anthropo + genic = human + caused (Think "anthropology" and "Genesis".)

(Yes, all they're composed of Greek and Latin roots--but the words and their roots have been used in ordinary English for centuries.)

"Jargon" more properly refers to words which are coined for or are given a new meaning in a specialised context, which meaning is not always readily discernible to someone who is not a specialist in that field. "Anthropogenic" means "created by humans", and that meaning isn't significantly changed depending on context.

"Hard drive", on the other hand, could mean "a device which stores data on a metallic platter"; "hitting an object a long way with something like a baseball bat or golf club"; "a difficult journey [by car]"; "a path whose surface is not soft, leading to a home or other building" (okay, that one's somewhat contrived, but still it's not completely unreasonable), and doubtless a few other things I've not thought of, depending on context. The first of these uses was considered jargon 30 years ago, but possibly not any longer, because nearly everyone has by now been exposed to computers and that bit of computer terminology.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[thesameguy]

I will say this and only this: What you are describing is a significant part of the downward spiral of humanity. There was a time when journalists challenged their readership because it was assumed the readership came to the journalist in search of knowledge. Over time it became apparent that you could sell more paper if you simplified the wording and phrasing, and made it more accessible to more people. That phenomenon has become a race - make things easier, sell more stuff. The goal of the journalist should be to inform, not sell papers As I said before, when the focus becomes understanding the words and not the meaning, you accomplish nothing (except selling paper). "Accessible" is the increasing problem with our society. The mentality that people should not have to work to improve themselves is totally and utterly flawed. Getting stronger requires working out your muscles. Getting smarter requires working out your brains. Reassuring people that they don't have to work - making the weights lighter and the words simpler doesn't make them stronger or smarter. It fills time. It sells weights and paper. My grandmother knows this, and that's why when I talk to her like a 7th grader she gets upset. If you don't get this, I'm sorry for you. I'm sure you'll enjoy your Twilight novels, your Oprah, and your Doritos. I will always be in the camp that the only way to improve one's lot in life is to be challenged. So I'll take my novels wordy, my TV off, and my journals rich with jargon that I barely understand but know that I have the tools to decipher them. Thanks.

Re:Glad someone said it.

[Obfuscant]

I will say this and only this: What you are describing is a significant part of the downward spiral of humanity.

I agree. The deliberate movement to leave people behind because of the assumption that anyone who doesn't understand specialized jargon is lazy or dumb is creating a sub-class of people who get to vote but don't get information they can use to make those votes intelligently.

There was a time when journalists challenged their readership because it was assumed the readership came to the journalist in search of knowledge.

That doesn't mean the journalist can ignore the audience to which he is writing and force them to learn a whole set of technical jargon if they want to know what he's saying. A good journalist has ALWAYS written so that his audience can understand him, simply because he is supposed to be a source of information. (Not "knowledge").

Over time it became apparent that you could sell more paper if you simplified the wording and phrasing, and made it more accessible to more people.

More information to more people is a good thing.

As I said before, when the focus becomes understanding the words and not the meaning, you accomplish nothing (except selling paper).

You don't need specialized jargon to impart the meaning; in fact, the use of jargon impedes the understanding of meaning. You've already demonstrated that more than once.

The mentality that people should not have to work to improve themselves is totally and utterly flawed.

There you go again wandering off topic. Nobody is talking about people improving themselves. When you want to learn a new subject, you need to learn new stuff. When you want to inform people of a current issue that requires information to make a good decision, you're not trying to "improve" people, your need is to impart information. Jargon gets in the way.

It isn't the journalist's job to turn every reader into a climate scientist when he writes about the latest IPCC report or some proposed legislation that deals with carbon penalties. It's his job to convey information in a way that is accessible to his readers.

I'm sure you'll enjoy your Twilight novels, your Oprah, and your Doritos.

Since you can't stop being an arrogant asshole long enough to hold an intelligent discussion, I'll let you go about your way spouting jargon to your Grannie or whatever.

So I'll take my novels wordy, my TV off, and my journals rich with jargon ..

It is now clear what your problem is. You've confused the word "journalist" with the concept of technical journals. I've been pretty clear in saying that a journalist should write to the level of HIS AUDIENCE, which means a journalist who writes for JACM or Spectrum will write to a different level than one who writes for The Chicago Tribune. Please, continue to ignore that distinction and ramble on about Doritos, however. You've done so well, so far, doing that.

Perhaps it's just the summary, but...

[Twisted64]

What? What is the problem? Is antipathy regarding jargon an issue for journalists?

If a language requires a large degree of labour to understand, there's no point using it in an article intended for the general public. Oooooh, this isn't about journalists (as I understood it from the title), it's about researchers acting like journalists.

My fear is that the percentage of people who use language correctly seems to be diminishing. I reassure myself with the thought that I can't pinpoint when this started happening. Our caveman ancestors would no doubt have torn The Reader Over Your Shoulder to shreds, metaphorically.

Speak the Reader's Language

[Nethemas the Great]

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. The real question that should be being asked is whether or not to use non-technical, attention grabbing "buzz" words that add no value and are more likely to distance the reader from and hinder their understanding of the subject being discussed.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[icebike]

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.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[Nethemas the Great]

Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[Trepidity]

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 a while ago.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[TubeSteak]

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.

Not everything can be dumbed down.
And not everything should be dumbed down.

Here's a lengthy rant from Richard Feynman when being asked about magnets (how do they work?)
Watch the first minute, then skip to 3m 56s
He more or less says that some questions are too complicated to be explained in terms "that you're more familiar with".

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[Austerity Empowers]

It can be difficult. Jargon is often well defined only within a particular field, and can mean something entirely different in another field, or, more typically, nothing at all. Judicious use of jargon makes sense though.

"I instrumented and characterized a high speed buffer as part of the silicon validation strategy" - This is a sentence people would use at my job, and while many of the words are approachable to the uninitiated, it sounds awkward and some of the words are near fits that don't mean what the dictionary says they mean while others are just inscrutable ("A buffer? What, is your paint scratched?"). This sentence could be converted to "I tested the chip" to the least educated of audiences, it doesn't quite mean that, but it's close enough. Chip is jargon, though widely enough known that you probably could find it in a dictionary, but it's easy to include Figure 1 "A Chip", and instantly everyone would know what I mean, and not a potato chip, a french fry, a piece of stone broken off a larger piece of stone, or that chocolate thing in cookies.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[PCM2]

Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.

...which would be exactly what I would call jargon, and explains succinctly why it is to be avoided.

Technical terms are not necessarily jargon, but they become so when the text starts to look like it was written in some private argot.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[Obfuscant]

He more or less says that some questions are too complicated to be explained in terms "that you're more familiar with".

If those things are too complicated to be explained in terms that the listener is familiar with, then the concept is probably not of any importance to the listener to start with. And if the listener isn't familiar with your terms, you're going to have to bring him up to speed before you can slap all the technical words on him anyway.

"Why do magnets work" doesn't need a full quantum mechanical lecture with Maxwell's equations and tensors and Feynman diagrams and chromodynamics tossed on for good measure to get the point across to a lay audience who might ask that question. Eleven dimensional string theory, hypothetical subatomic particles carrying the "field"? To one of his advanced physics classes, yes. To Joe Sixpack, no.

It's like a five year old asking "where do babies come from"? You don't go into genetics and meiosis and fallopian tubes and all the gory details to answer that question. You don't need to. Nor do you need to go into a full fluid dynamics/thermal transfer/equilibrium discussion to explain why CO2 keeps heat trapped.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[PCM2]

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.

Right. I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that, for a guy who's complaining about journalists not using the right terms for things, he seems to have chosen his terms poorly.

My dictionary defines jargon as, "The specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group, especially when viewed as difficult to understand by outsiders." As a secondary definition it has, "Nonsensical or incoherent language."

From those definitions, the real meaning of the term is clear. Words aren't jargon just because they're technical terms. Words become jargon when they start to obscure the meaning of the text, intentionally or otherwise.

Just the other day I had someone email me to explain to me the "logistics" of a conference session I was to attend. By "logistics," however, he really meant directions -- he was literally telling me to take the elevator to the fourth floor, go past the concierge desk, and it would be the third room on the left. That's pure jargon -- it's not even a correct usage of the word -- and in my experience, business communication is rife with it. Business people who are trying to sound important will never use a simple word when a three-syllable one will do.

As a journalist who covers companies, I have to wade through that kind of crap every day, and it's my job to rescue readers from it.

Technical terms, on the other hand, usually have their place, and because I write about technical topics for professionals, I use a lot of them. Knowing when and where their place is, however, also part of the job.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[formfeed]

bring it down to their level. It's common sense.

Which reader?
The average reader? an interested reader? a reader willing to engage his/her brain? or the majority of readers?

Yes! The majority of readers! Majority good. Masses makes advertising money. Jargon bad. Long sentences bad. Writing for 3yos good.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[icebike]

Business people who are trying to sound important will never use a simple word when a three-syllable one will do.

They are simply interfacing with you to build consensus and team cohesion, working toward common goals and meaningful milestones. This requires sharing broad vision and shared sacrifices. By facilitating your gaining context, they hope guide you to greater synergy.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[arth1]

"Why do magnets work" doesn't need a full quantum mechanical lecture with Maxwell's equations and tensors and Feynman diagrams and chromodynamics tossed on for good measure to get the point across to a lay audience who might ask that question. Eleven dimensional string theory, hypothetical subatomic particles carrying the "field"? To one of his advanced physics classes, yes. To Joe Sixpack, no.

But that wasn't the question in the parent post. The question was "how do magnets work", and that can easily be answered in a dumbed down way: they push and they pull. More questions can give better answers. And the better the questions, the better the answers can be. For a five year old or redneck, 'they push and pull each other, and a few metals like iron and some other substances" is likely good enough.

The best way to play the toddler "why"-game is to never answer, but wait for a better question.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[PCM2]

They are simply interfacing with you to build consensus and team cohesion, working toward common goals and meaningful milestones. This requires sharing broad vision and shared sacrifices. By facilitating your gaining context, they hope guide you to greater synergy.

Haha! You are joking with the wrong guy!

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

The problem is that in the process of trying to "bring it down to their level," writers often change the meaning of what they're saying enough that it's actually wrong. No one should use jargon needlessly (a rule which applies as much to writing for a technically knowledgeable audience as for the general public, BTW) but at some point we need to be willing to say to the readers, essentially, "If you're afraid of learning the correct vocabulary to describe the subject of the story, then it probably isn't for you. Nothing to see here, move along."

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[lwriemen]

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.

There you go using jargon words like "theory", which, the right-wing has clearly demonstrated, is a difficult word to understand.

Re:Speak the Reader's Language

[rnturn]

``Nothing wrong with providing a quick glossary/appendix (or links thereto) either.''

While the editors would probably delete it because of "space concerns" (translation: "we needed that space for another advertisement") a glossary would most welcome in many articles. I use footnotes in my own writing instead of a glossary but those aren't exactly popular in many forms of writing. (They're downright horrible to try and incorporate into web publications; at least I've never found any implementations that weren't awkward for the reader to use.) At the very least, the author should expand acronyms the first time they are used rather than assume everyone knows what the darned things mean. What may be a commonly used acronym familiar to experts in one field may mean something completely different to readers from another field. For example, I can think of at least three ways to interpret "CMS". I'm sure there are many more.

This is what sources are for...

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

If you don't have relevant qualifications, credit and refer to someone who does. Quote them explaining what the jargon means. It's the most honest way of saying 'I don't know what it means exactly, but I took the time to find someone who does'.

It's not like we're filthy primitives who live in caves and don't know how to hyperlink.

Re:This is what sources are for...

[Crypto Gnome]

+1 as per the above

The issue is that journo-droids spend SO MUCH TIME dumbing-down their story for "the unwashed barely literate masses" that instead of actually INFORMING them they're just spouting mindless rubbish which ONLY VAGUELY relates to the actual issue/story at hand.

That, my friend, is nothing more than media-hype!

UNFORTUNATELY the dictionary-entry for 'journalism" describes *exactly* this problem.

journalism [jur-nl-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business. 2. press1 ( def. 31 ) . 3. a course of study preparing students for careers in reporting, writing, and editing for newspapers and magazines. 4. writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

Nothing there at all about "informing" or "educating", it's nothing more than "make shit up and yak on about it".

The use of jargons

[Taco Cowboy]

Just like everything else, the use of jargon comes in several forms -
 
Use it sparingly and the jargon can "enhance" the article
 
Use it to the extreme and lay people get confused to the point of giving up reading the article altogether
 
Even the way one uses everyday language can effect the read-a-bility of the article, believe it or not
 

Re:The use of jargons

[arth1]

Use it sparingly and the jargon can "enhance" the article

Use it to the extreme and lay people get confused to the point of giving up reading the article altogether

Even the way one uses everyday language can effect the read-a-bility of the article, believe it or not

I may be wrong, but whenever I have seen jargon used by journalists, it's been used wrong[*]. Sometimes the public has even picked up the misnomer, with confusion as a result, until one side or the other "won".

Examples I remember include "CPU", "hard disk", "quantum leap", "mega-", "Internet", "cloud" and even "computer" (which was a human, and later an operator of a computing machine).

I think a writer should always stay away from terms he does not comprehend. Use words that both he and his audience will understand, and, if using jargon, always explain it the first time it's used.

[*] Or wrongly, for pedants who won't accept wrong being used as an adverb.

Re:The use of jargons

[Trouvist]

I'll be that pedantic grammar slashdotter, but it's actually "incorrectly." Wrongly denotes more along the lines of the subject being incorrect, rather than the action being taken. Hence, incorrectly.

Re:The use of jargons

[azalin]

How about "hacker"

Re:The use of jargons

[jxander]

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 ...

Re:The use of jargons

[TheRaven64]

And define it! People read news to become more educated. BBC articles quite often have a little sidebar describing what the terms mean (often in an incredibly patronising way, but you can't have everything). If you're familiar with the subject, then you get to read a more information-dense article. If you're not, then the sidebar teaches you the basic terminology, which helps you the next time you try to read something technical in the same field.

Re:The use of jargons

[AliasMarlowe]

I may be wrong, but whenever I have seen jargon used by journalists, it's been used wrongly. Sometimes the public has even picked up the misnomer, with confusion as a result, until one side or the other "won".

A disgracefully simple example is blue moon which was misrepresented by a journalist in a magazine which should have been competent in the area. This wrong definition was picked up by the less erudite (partly because they trusted Sky and Telescope magazine in such matters) and the wrong meaning almost predominates nowadays, despite decades of active correction by those who know better.

Re:The use of jargons

[RaceProUK]

BBC articles quite often have a little sidebar describing what the terms mean (often in an incredibly patronising way, but you can't have everything).

Remember they have to cater for all people, from the brainiest of Slashdotters to subhuman trash.

Re:The use of jargons

[Troyusrex]

I'll be that pedantic grammar slashdotter, but it's actually "incorrectly." Wrongly denotes more along the lines of the subject being incorrect, rather than the action being taken. Hence, incorrectly.

Stop using your grammar jargon on us! You are preventing me from using my core competencies to leverage mind share in the forum space!

Re:The use of jargons

[Joce640k]

Use it to the extreme and lay people get confused to the point of giving up reading the article altogether

I don't think you're giving enough credit to 'lay people'. Everybody knows how to use google these days. The sort of people who read technical articles aren't the sort to be put off by a bit of jargon.

You could even add a sidebar or footnotes to define terms if you think it's necessary.

Re:The use of jargons

[ArsenneLupin]

pedantic grammar slashdotter

Way to insult all slashdotters by equating them to n...

Re:The use of jargons

[RaceProUK]

It must make you really happy to maliciously misinterpret neutral statements. I mean, you're so proud of what you've done you've posted anonymously. That way, when you're inevitably modded to oblivion, you don't have to worry about your /. karma being burnt. At least I'm not afraid to attach my name to what I say.

Here's a tip: next time you want to be a dick, go eat a sandwich or something.

Re:The use of jargons

[mcgrew]

Good comment, except "computer" (which was a human, and later an operator of a computing machine).

No, that one was fine. A computer was a human computing firing tables, scientific calculations, etc, and when electronic computers came along and did those jobs, the machine was the computer and the person operating the machine was the computer operator.

Just like a ditch digger. A ditch digger used to be a man with a spade, now a ditch digger is a machine with a human operator running it.

In defence of obscure words

[RalfM]

There was a BBC article by Will Self on this recently also.

In defence of obscure words

Ralf

Audience

[LordLucless]

If you're writing for Nature, yes, you should use scientific jargon. Your audience are scientists, or those interested enough in science to buy Nature. Maybe include a glossary, or a quick definition in an aside, but your audience is looking for technical details, not a quick summary.

If you're writing for the Times, don't. Your audience doesn't care about the ins-and-outs, they want to hear about practical effects.

I did one single subject in Journalism at university almost ten years ago and I know this. This is not rocket science.

Re: Audience

[TaoPhoenix]

Interesting that Slashdot is a fairly Linear medium, the comments show up in some pseudo-organic manner and whatever butterfly-fluctuations of the order they show up in makes the mood of the thread. Limited by my own frailties, I have long been interested with the early themes of multiple versions of the same text, so that the readers can choose *their own version* of the article. If you want the cheap pop, read the 400 inflammatory words. If you want the details, click "show advanced" etc and read the 4,000 word version.

This was one of the early goals of the old Hypertext Theorists, but with the mechanics of Forum Posting mechanics, we're back to static 1-version comments.

Re: Audience

[Chris Mattern]

I have long been interested with the early themes of multiple versions of the same text, so that the readers can choose *their own version* of the article. If you want the cheap pop, read the 400 inflammatory words. If you want the details, click "show advanced" etc and read the 4,000 word version.

Already a solved problem, and you don't need hypertext for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid. Not only does it make the story easy to edit for length, it enables the reader to simply stop when he feels he has enough detail.

Unnecessary

[Chemisor]

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:Unnecessary

[drinkypoo]

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."?

the problem there isn't the existence of jargon, but its misuse. It can be exchanged between professionals, and the professionals can and should use plain speech when speaking to laymen.

Re:Unnecessary

[Johann Lau]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it unnecessary.

"Pneumothorax: accumulation of air in the chest leading to collapse of the lung"

"leading to" != "is".

Also, I kinda doubt a doctor talking to a patient uses "big words" to show they're smart, since at that point that usually is established. It is simply the more correct term. Like you say "browser" when talking to someone else, instead of "the window in which websites show up". You say browser, and make sure they know what you mean by explaining what it is. But you don't say something that's technically bullshit, just to appease them.

Also, some patients actually prefer not having their diagnosis watered down for them. Them being adults and all that. If that's not you, why not shut the fuck up? If you don't understand what they're saying and can't be arsed to learn, just tell them "I'm too dumb or lazy too understand, just do your thing please". And don't forget to say thank you, either, when they fixed your boo-boo.

stop inventing argot just so you can look smart

Argot? Bullshit. You're the conspirator in this case, by being proud of being ignorant.

Re:Unnecessary

[PCM2]

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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they give diseases specific names so that they can match the cure to the disease. You might not really need to know that you have pneumothorax, but your doctors, nurses, and pharmacists do.

Saying "your lung collapsed" is not sufficient. That's like diagnosing you with "an infection." It might be all you care to know, but that much knowledge isn't enough to get you cured.

P.S. Pneumothorax doesn't mean you have a collapsed lung.

Re:Unnecessary

[godrik]

"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."? "

I think it is important for a specialist to give you the actually name of your disease. You might see another doctor later that will be happy to know the actual name of the disease. Or you might be interested in knowing the disease you have. Or you might actually know what pneumothorax is (which I don't). Here is a case where I believe jargon is actually relevant.

Re:Unnecessary

[artor3]

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:Unnecessary

[Guppy]

P.S. Pneumothorax doesn't mean you have a collapsed lung.

Absolutely correct, it refers to air in the pleural cavity (which would normally be not so much a cavity, as more of a "potential space").

In explaining a medical condition to a layman, I would have no problem telling him he had collapsed lung. But if I were to read "collapsed lung" in some de-jargonized medical record, I would have no idea if the writer meant Atelectasis instead.

Re:Unnecessary

[Johann Lau]

Problem is, they're telling you things that you need to make decisions about now, in many cases, not after you've gone home or to the library to look it all up.

Oh yeah? The post I replied to:

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."?

Notice that "collapsed lung" and "pneumothorax" are NOT the same thing.

Also, I'm personally not aware of cases where something a patient needs to make a decision about isn't explained to them, and they've certainly not been part of this discussion until you went ahead and made them up.

As for being "lazy" or "dumb", you're just a flamebait spigot, aren't you?

Learn to fucking read, then get back to me on that.

If you know what pneumothorax is and cannot convert that to "air in the chest that is causing a collapse of your lung" then I doubt you have a full grasp of what it means in the first place.

I see what you did there, namely wanking over strawmen.

However, the post I replied to didn't say "X can lead to Y", but "X IS Y", and moaned. They, and I, assumed that "jargon" being followed by an explanation. See the stuff about "browser".

Nobody argued for using jargon and not explaining it, you nitwit. Have a dumb fucking day.

Re:Unnecessary

[Obfuscant]

As for being "lazy" or "dumb", you're just a flamebait spigot, aren't you?

Learn to fucking read, then get back to me on that.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

Re:JOURNALISTS KNOWING WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT

[clemdoc]

You can't believe in it if you didn't know it well enough in the first place.

I fear you'll find many people who ardently believe one thing or another without having any clue whatsoever.

Jounalists need to use small words...

[mschaffer]

because they are, for the most part, barely literate.

keep that shit up..

[rmdingler]

Tower of Babylon

How to use the DOI system ?

[Taco Cowboy]

First of all, many thanks for the link

I need to know how to use the DOI system to locate articles that are hidden behind paywall or walled-gardens

Not that I'm cheapskate or something, but there _are_ a lot of very crucial articles that are not available to the public, and I'm thinking to look into the DOI to dig out those articles

Please help.

Thank you again !!
 

Re:How to use the DOI system ?

[Baron Eekman]

DOI is only a link to the official address of a paper, it is not a repository.

Re:How to use the DOI system ?

[mt42]

I'm afraid the DOI system doesn't actually bypass any paywalls. I was simply noting that this particular article was publicly available (most Nature articles are not). A DOI is just a persistent, unique "digital object identifier". It is now extremely common for academic journal articles to have a DOI assigned to them. The DOI for an article remains constant, and resolution from the DOI to the current URL at which the article can be found is handled by the DOI resolution system. The DOI for this article is 10.1038/487407a, and one way to resolve it is to prefix it with 'http://dx.doi.org/'. If you want to read more about DOIs, there is plenty of information at http://www.doi.org./

Re:How to use the DOI system ?

[TaoPhoenix]

Come on mods, this is "only" +2? This comment practically ends this entire discussion!

"Journalists + Jargon: Good or Bad?" Being the article? And everyone got to talking about God Particles?

We're *Techies*! (Well you are, I am a self-deprecating wannabe, but you get my drift.) The minute anyone goes for a +5 Informative (not Insightful, which cake for humanities types like me to get), but *Informative*, you're gonna get ... wait for it ... Jargon! I had no idea what a DOI was. (Oh no! It's Jargon! We can't have that, make it simple, call it an "Intertubezwebs thingie"!)

We've spent entire threads bemoaning/laughing at NewbsWithNoLawnz ... which is another way to say that we know that particular article's Jargon, and they don't. But Jargon is in the eye of the beholder, so the same article in two different markets creates two different results of audience perception. Uh, I mean, Dem Readerz will Like you on Facebook one way and send you LolCats and the other will study your reasoned critique.

Who will read it?

[pegasustonans]

Readership of large magazines and newspapers declined rather drastically since the Second World War.

In recent years, large media organizations are often using even simpler language than in previous decades.

So, I have to ask, while there will always be a small segment of the population with the desire to both be 'well-informed' and the discipline necessary to attain that goal, how are you going to bridge the gap between this small audience and the far larger one which primarily seeks non-educational entertainment?

While journalism with solid evidence and sophisticated language is an excellent ideal and a noble goal, the reality of a population with minimal desire to understand issues on a deeper level constrains the business side of things.

While the news media is partially to blame for the situation where many people are minimally educated and willfully ignorant, our education system, politics and cultural values all play a part as well. Are we going to change all of these facets of our contemporary society in order to make journalism with sophisticated language successful, and, if so, how would we go about doing so pragmatically?

Re:Who will read it?

[dbIII]

Sometime around Reagan's term there was a proposal to save money in depressed areas by only teaching a vastly reduced sort of pidgin English called Ebonics. It appears this was seen as racist so it was applied across the board and all you poor sods ended up with an education inferior to what you'd get in Nigeria.

So that's an exaggeration, but sadly it's only a slight one, and not very fair on Nigeria where standards have been improving.

A consequence of education cuts in the USA and other parts of the west is we get idiots here that thing the height of language is a spelling bee and not getting an idea accross - in a more complete education Shakespeare and Chaucer and given to students in small doses to get the spelling obsession out of their systems.
Anyway, we've ended up with some sort of newspeak with only a couple of thousand acceptable words to use, with wild distortions of meaning driven by advertising and a lot of people adding private definitions of words on the fly or at their convenience if they think they are losing an argument.

Re:Who will read it?

[pegasustonans]

I haven't met many who think the height of language is a spelling bee, but I agree there's definitely a more effective way to educate children than methods currently widespread in certain school districts.

The question, of course, is exactly how to go about implementing and monitoring such a method given the current cultural and political environment.

Re:Who will read it?

[dbIII]

I haven't met many who think the height of language is a spelling bee

For a few years this site seemed to be full of them. One loser even tried to correct me when I wrote "aluminium" instead of staying on topic.

Yes, absolutely

[aliquis]

call it "secret sauce" instead.

Less is more

[chilvence]

I would say people should write with their intended audience in mind, but then somewhere along the line someone invented legalese and ruined everything for everybody, because the intended audience of that is no living thing.

What irks me though, is people that fish for as many big words as they can to try to sound clever, even when talking about things that should be simple. If you can't keep it straightforward, then you are just talking for your own benefit and nobody elses...

In summary, use jargon if you have to, but if you use it where you don't need to, I KILL YOU

"So-called"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing irritates me more than seeing journalists use the phrase "so-called" to avoid explaining the meaning behind a technical (or simply colloquial) term. Or sometimes anything about the subject.

If people working in a particular field have a word to describe something common to that field, that IS the correct word to use. The insinuation that there is some ambiguity about what the thing should be referred to as is unnecessary.

Re:Journalists should do their research

[tragedy]

My favorite is how mercenaries are always called "contractors", with the nature of their contract left unexplained. You're left to wonder how all these people who are presumably there to hang drywall based on their title keep getting in so much trouble.

matter of professional judgment

[nightcats]

Yes, it's not a yes or no answer; it's a matter of professional judgment, and there comes the rub, for there are so few professionals in modern journalism. Not because we're stupid but because we lack a culture of mentorship -- old pros are tossed aside like, well, yesterday's news, and the young are left to learn the long, hard, bad way -- often in an environment where survival is critical and ethics are optional. A recent example from what I now call Higgs-dependence Day (July 4): generally, the trend here went toward jargon. Journalists attempted to educate readers in a little of the theoretical minutiae behind the Higgs field, and ran the risk of losing those who didn't GAS in the first place anyway. Hacks and amateurs resorted instantly to the phrase "God particle" and ran with it. In politics, it's perhaps worst of all, because the hacks own the field, and even at places like the NYT, usualy reduce everything to what I call a common "de-numb-inator." I read Grist regularly and see the frustration amid their editors at the trained ignorance in matters like climate change/climate science. Again: the problem is in the culture, not in the people. Folks who want to keep their jobs know that you have to work from the outside in, and the further in you get the more cred you have. Professionals, the few that remain, know that the journalist's job is as a critical, questioning, sometimes abrasive outsider who names virtually all his sources and engages in little or no games of push-me-pull-you intellectual commerce.

Right, but...

[multicoregeneral]

At least as far as it relates to scientific jargon, every specialized field in science has it's own distinct jargon, that's not compatible with the jargon from any other scientific field, even when you have objects, methods, and traits that cross disciplines. Scientific journalists, unless they specialize in one very specific field should be smart enough to notice this. That's why they're hostile towards jargon. If the jargon was standard across all scientific fields, journalists would use more of it; because while all this makes perfect sense to scientists... nobody else gets it. And why should they? Seriously people.

Jargon?

[snspdaarf]

Hell, I would be happy if they would stop using "busted" instead of "broken".

Re:Jargon?

[arth1]

Hell, I would be happy if they would stop using "busted" instead of "broken".

I'd vote for cutting down on the -ize words.
Ruggedized is a word, but most of the time it's used as a bad substitute for rugged.
Similar for utilized and used. By all means, use utilized, but not when you mean use.
Burglarized is another word that's almost always used incorrectly. If you are systematically being targeted by burglars, or you get trained to become one, you are burglarized. If your house gets broken into and items stolen, you've been burgled.

Oh, and "refactoring". It doesn't mean what most people who use the word (including programmers) think it means.

It will get worse

[dbIII]

Pulling it into string theory will give you the "god string" which will be shortened to g-string.

Re:It will get worse

[Mateorabi]

Only someone with a p-brane would think that was funny.

Re:It will get worse

[azalin]

Well at least a g-string theory would cause far more interest than physics would usually get. "From whale fins to g-string - An illustrated handbook"

Nope!

[Greyfox]

But they should just randomly make some up in stories because, really, who's going to call them on it? If it sounds real enough, no one will know!

Re:In general no

[stms]

First of all see Betteridge's Law of Headlines. Secondly did no one here pay attention in their high school English class. I did I just fell asleep for the grammar portions. One of the things I do remember is one of the first things you should consider when writing is your audience. If you use jargon that your audience won't understand you will alienate your audience instead of engaging them. So unless you're writing for people who already have at least a basic understanding of the subject matter the answers is no.

No thanks

[Art3x]

English has unusually broad origins: Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Latin, and Greek. And for no good reason. It's entirely an artifact of its political history.

So, there is a lot of redundancy. Several words that mean the same thing yet someone says they all have different shades of meaning. Sometime true, like the difference between imply and infer. Other times, they are just all the same word, one Anglo-Saxon, one Latin, one Greek. It's like importing the Spanish word for dog, perro, and using dog sometimes and sometimes perro and claiming subtle shifts in meaning.

The author claims one advantage of jargon is brevity. Sometimes that's true. But the words of jargon typically are Latin, which always has more syllables than Anglo-Saxon. So if you measure the length by units of sound --- which more closely follows how much brainpower it takes to process a word --- and not by "words" of arbitrary length, then the jargonless version is usually shorter.

The worst is how scientists make up a new name using several long words. Then, since the phrase is too tiresome to write or say daily, they take turn it into an acronym, thus absolutely sealing its meaning. For example, when I was working as a technical writer describing a network, I remember unravelling Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA). "Carrier Sense" means "listening." "Multiple Access" means several are talking. So its a way for several to talk in the same room by first listening to make sure no one else already is saying something. Had they called it Listen-First Group Talk (5 syllables) instead of Carrier Sense Multiple Access (9 syllables) then technicians and laymen alike could grasp it on first hearing, and it would less likely have been acronymized, since it's just one more syllable than a four-letter acronym.

Re:Because everyone is dumber..

[Johann Lau]

How many times have you seen reasonably intelligent people dismiss trying to attempt something because "It's too complicated for me"?

http://blog.kippt.com/2012/07/17/tags-are-here/

http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-file-system/

for example. I mean, fucking folders? For scientists? REALLY?

"Idiocracy" was a vastly optimistic movie. 500 years, haha. 50, more like.

Jargon makes sense..

[dark grep]

It depends on the audience. A physics review journal or a medical publication for doctors is going to be very unappealing if it's written in laymans terms. On the other hand magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American do a pretty good job of making scientific news accessible to everyone, and take the effort to explain jargon terms when used.

OTH, IMHO, I LMAO at the irony of where journalism is heading in general. DUCY?

Re:Goddamn Particle

[Phrogman]

The original paper describing the so-called God particle was supposed to be titled "The Goddamn Particle" because of how difficult it was to prove it existed, but the publisher said that Higgs could not use "Goddamn" in the title, and shortened it.

If you need jargon, you can't write.

[Animats]

Amusingly, the Associated Press manual of style says to avoid jargon in news stories. They make one amusing exception: sports stories. Sports fans are expected to understand that jargon.

Read the Economist, which discusses subjects of considerable complexity with less financial jargon than Mad Money. They recently published one of the best explanations of the confirmation of the Higgs boson seen in the popular press. In inimitable Economist style, they point out that the neutron, discovered in 1932, was the last subatomic particle to have commercial applications.

There is more jargon in some unboxing videos than in Knuth's Fundamental Algorithms.

Re:In general no

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Secondly did no one here pay attention in their high school English class. I did I just fell asleep for the grammar portions.

You were apparently pretty drowsy during the lecture on punctuation, too.

Hyperlinks

[bill_mcgonigle]

or hover bubbles, whatever. Why are we having 20th century arguments?

There are worse problems...

[solidraven]

While we're on the subject of jargon I wish to make a small detour to the realms of physics and reality.
First of all, one sends an electric current through a device/circuit/... not a voltage! Seeing this wrong just annoys me greatly. Another one is "the god particle", How does defining mass turn something into a god? Sure, it sounds far more spectacular but it's just plain wrong from a logical point of view. Another problem is the rampant usage of acronyms. It seems every invention and field of science these days has to come with its own expanded set of acronyms.They twist, cut and shape the name of the project just to be able to make a fancy sounding acronym. Just stop it already, Frankly put, I'm an engineer and I don't understand half the acronyms that I hear at technology conferences. They're probably made up on the spot cause they think it sounds impressive, guess what; It doesn't! So please journalists stop citing acronyms; Cause even the people who are familiar with the technology don't know what they mean. There's a wagon load of alternatives that you can use. And if you really must, do what we do in our articles:
ACRONYM ( WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IN BETWEEN BRACKETS )

Thank you for reading this rant on how idiotic and annoying reporters have gotten.

they do use jargon

[kenorland]

Journalists use technical terms like "unnamed sources", "alleged", "deep throat", etc. They even have their own system of measurements beyond metric and imperial: "size of a football field/bus/grape/head of a pin".

Jargon is great...

[abigsmurf]

If you understand it.

We like jargon because we understand it. I'll use a cricket example to highlight what this is like to other people:

There's three slips and a gully, he bowled googlies this over before in the hope of a wicket but he ended up with them getting a boundry for 4 and a leg bye. 10 overs left this innings, powerplay taken, no reviews, 10 through extras, a bit of rain on the horizon so it may go to Duckworth Lewis, chasing 254 for 7.

Simple right?

Re:Yes. NO

[jafiwam]

NO!

Journalists can't get "clip" and "magazine" correct. Or the difference between a "web designer" and a "computer programmer." In NO WAY do they have the base education to use any complicated jargon.

They need education that's not colored by a bunch of arrogance or "I write, I don't need to know about that" crap. Ignorance is still a virtue in their eyes because that keeps them from being nerds.

When journalists stop being total idiots, then, they'll naturally start using jargon and it will work fine. Until then. NO.

They would still need to lead into the jargon by a little explanation or context for readers that don't know though.

when was the last time you dealt with quarks

[Chirs]

in a way where it actually mattered to you which flavor you had? For most people (likely including many physicists) the answer is "never".

haven't we been through this already?

[Goldsmith]

I am a scientist, I work across multiple disciplines and have to deal with jargon from physics, chemistry, biology, law and the military. It's a lot of fun. Consider for a moment that undefined jargon is used in law and the military to prevent people from fully understanding something. Is a similar tactic a really a good idea in science?

As the various disciplines become more intertwined, the differences in jargon are creating problems. For example, you have terms like "free carrier" and "quantum efficiency" which may relate to light adsorption and the operation of a solar cell. Like much physics jargon, those terms imply a simplicity and elegance which is misleading when you get down to the real, formal definition. A fundamental misunderstanding of the definitions behind those terms has led to skewed estimates of the overall efficiency of some polymer and biological solar collectors. This in turn has led to bad research investments, with the failed companies and careers that come with that. Now, if physicists had done a better job disseminating the formal definitions of those terms, the people without a condensed matter physics background would have had a better chance for success.

Jargon is used within disciplines as a kind of short hand. There are (or should be) perfectly acceptable definitions for each term. The jargon (such as "free carrier") used is not important, it's the definition of those terms which is meaningful and which needs to be present when trying to communicate precisely.

Translation works or not

[minstrelmike]

There are folks who say some word/concept in another language cannot be translated to English.
Bull shit.
If words actually mean things, then you can translate _any_ concept. If you don't believe this, then you'd _have_ to believe that the only way to understand the foreign concept is to be born and raised within that particular language-culture.

The people who say concepts are untranslatable don't understand English or the concept very well.
In physics, if you cannot explain the idea to the bartender, then YOU don't understand it. You don't get to blame the bartender.

Re:Because everyone is dumber..

[Mal-2]

for example. I mean, fucking folders? For scientists? REALLY?

I'm with you on this one. I couldn't get by with just a "music" folder. In fact, my music library is separated by artist, and those artists are further organized by letter just so I don't have as much to wade through trying to find them. (This happens when dealing with tens of thousands of tracks.) There is a "letter" for multi-artist compilations such as soundtracks as well. A one-level system works so long as it doesn't contain too much information, such as a portable media player or phone. I have a 16 GB SD card in my MP3 player, and it doesn't need hierarchies. One folder per artist is quite sufficient. This system falls flat on its face though when dealing with 200 GB of the same kind of files. The result is that the organization of music (and just about every other kind of media) on my NAS box is complex, but on single-serving devices it remains simple.

The fact is that there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to do things, not even for a single person. I encounter this with the filing of artists into letters. I decided that artists who use their own name or name the entire band after themselves, are filed under the first letter of their LAST name. Thus, Dave Matthews (and The Dave Matthews Band) is filed under "M", not "D". But what do I do with The Reverend Horton Heat? Sure his last name is really "Heath", not "Heat", but it's still (mostly) his name. So do I file it under "H" or "R"? I opted for "R" because "Reverend" is a critical part of the nickname, but it really could have gone either way.

Unfortunately this is "too complex" for some people (especially those who can never remember the artist name), while "too complex" to me is having your music scattered across several folders without rhyme or reason, relying on your media player's Search function to find anything. Dumping it all into a single folder seems only slightly better.

Definition of Jargon

[scottj31]

One of the first people to comment on the Nature article has it right. The definition of "jargon" being used here is incorrect, so the article comes off, to me, as fussy straw man b.s. Terms that help you define, for example, a phenomenon specific to your discipline are not at all necessarily jargon. Jargon is calling your laboratory a "lab," or saying 'we did 17 "runs" of an assay to confirm our results.' Jargon refers to the terms you do not use when you publish a formal paper because -- they're informal.

Write to your target audience.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I thought that was journalism 101. If you are writing an article for a science mag then it better be filled with the scientific terminology used by the audience expected to read the magazine. If you dumb down the scientific jargon into layman's terms then you are going to lose credibility with your target audience.

On the other hand if you are writing about Higg's Boson in Reader's Digest then by all means revert to expressing science by turning distances into a measurement of football fields, volume in terms of Olympic sized swimming pools, and speeds in terms of Nascar racing with gobs of references to Star Trek and Star Wars.