Word choice is a vital concern for writers and readers alike. Every week I hear thoughtful comments about shades of meaning that can seriously alter perceptions of how fairly or accurately The Kansas City Star reports the news.
Some challenges are evergreens and indisputable. “Rebut” or “refute”? “Infer” or “imply”? “Blond” or “blonde”? (“Blonde” is used only as a noun referring to females, by the way.) These are all often-confused words that carry clearly different meanings.
When dealing with synonyms, readers will perceive a wide variety of purely subjective connotations. But some words are just plain bad choices, no matter what.
One such term is “ex-Marine,” which was used Thursday in a caption on Page A-1 with a photo of the funeral procession for Albert F. “Jud” Wagner, Kansa’ oldest World War I veteran. The Star has used the expression about a dozen times in the past year.
“He would have corrected you on that,” wrote Larry W. Fowler. “He most likely would have stated: ‘Former Marine, if you please. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi.’”
A story on Page B-1 the previous day used the preferred “former,” which is actually much more common in The Star’s archives. I can’t help but note that a caller who identified himself as a retired USMC master sergeant used “ex-Marine” in a Voices comment last October.
But it’s still a common objection, and it has been duly noted to the copy desk. In the Corps and newspapers alike, details count.
Not-so-big re-count news
Several callers and e-mailers asked why an item in Thursday’s Top 10 list on Page A-2 titled “Re-count was rigged” wasn’t more prominent.
“Don’t you think such major news about a contested state in the 2004 election should have been above the fold on the front?” one caller asked.
Here we have a story that was shortened too much for proper context. Yes, two election workers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, were convicted of criminal negligence.
But the full story noted several other salient details: They were not accused of voter fraud and were exonerated on five other charges each. The re-count in question ended up awarding 17 votes to John Kerry and subtracting 6 from President Bush. It did not change the state results.
This was definitely a case of overshortening causing more confusion than comprehension. I agree with one caller who said, “I don’t think that even deserved a place in the list then.”
