 |
|||
|
|
|
 Shed This Word, NowPosted on Sep 2, 2010By Ruth Marcus Indulge me, please, while I rant about my new least favorite word: shed. Not as in dog hair. As in jobs. As in, “The economy shed (fill in the blank) jobs last month.” Brace yourself for another spate of shedding when the next unemployment report is released. I don’t know how shed became the go-to journalistic verb to describe job loss, but I think my profession should stop this usage. Shedding implies something unnecessary or unwanted. “To eject, slough off, or lose as part of the normal processes of life,” my Merriam-Webster’s instructs. “To rid oneself of temporarily or permanently as superfluous or unwanted.” Advertisement Shedding is bad. Soldiers shed blood. Snakes shed skin. Children shed tears. Infected people shed viruses. Shedding light is, I admit, good. God sheds His grace on thee. But that’s about it. How did shedding migrate from shaggy dogs to job loss? The Oxford English Dictionary cites The Economist of March 1975, “the industry shed about 100,000 of its workforce.” In the last three months alone, a computer search of news reports shows 2,116 uses of the term in connection with jobs, from Ireland to Fiji. You can imagine how the term took hold. Financial writers became bored with saying the economy lost jobs. Shed is evocative. Shed worked for copy editors trying to cram the news into a headline only a few columns wide. But what might have been compactly colorful is now unnecessarily insensitive—not to mention trite. Lost is a better four-letter word. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official tallier of the nation’s joblessness, stoops to shed. “There is not a policy on when it’s used,” said Stacey Standish of the BLS. “We try to use those types of descriptive words consistently, but there’s no set time on when we use certain words.” How about never? Perhaps shed does not rise to the level of an executive order, but if I were the head of the BLS, or secretary of labor, I’d put a stop to it. If the government can’t do a better job of stemming job losses, at least it could describe the disappointing results in a more sensitive way. Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2010, Washington Post Writers Group  Previous item: More Mao Than Thou: What the Hell Is Happening in Nepal? Next item: Our Quick-Fix Electorate CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Contraception and the Cost of Culture Wars
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Mike789, September 4, 2010 at 2:43 am Link to this comment
Take all economists to the woood “shed”. This should be done forthwith to forestall their next prognostication or rather proscription for maintaining the uppercrust’s orbit above the general populace which sustains such soothsayers in their ivory towers. “For who would fardels bear?....”
Report thisBy clipper, September 3, 2010 at 6:03 am Link to this comment
The wealthy own most big Businesses and will only offer jobs to a selective few, because the longer the people are unemployed and more in need, they will work for almost nothing when the Republicans get in office again. A much larger gap between the rich & poor as it was in the 30’s. Also, the wealthy can send their children to college, and the poor will go to war. So the college kids will get the better jobs.
Report thisBy schwerblech, September 3, 2010 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
That’s a rather high level of precision you’re asking of the Ami-English press,
Report thisdon’t you think….?
By ofersince72, September 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment
Senator Patrick Leahy is trying to start a truth
commission
Please visit his website and sign the petitions or go to
bushtruthcommission.com
it is what we have been waiting for…............
Report thislend your name…
By taikan, September 2, 2010 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
The dictionary definition cited by Marcus explains why a conservative publication such as the Economist started using the term “shed” when related to job losses, and why it is used so often today.
As the dictionary notes, shedding is a normal part of life. Thus, saying that 150,000 jobs have been “shed” implies that 150,000 people have become unemployed due to a natural process for which nobody in particular is responsible.
In contrast, saying that 150,000 people have been laid off does not imply that those 150,000 people have become unemployed due to a natural process. Thus, if the media were to report on a regular basis that X number of people had been laid off during the prior week (or month), that might cause the public to wonder who was responsible for those layoffs, and who made the decision to lay those workers off.
Report thisBy Queenie, September 2, 2010 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment
Shedding can cause hairballs if one licks oneself. Not pleasant. But, IQ-wise hairballs are smarter than members of this administration.
Report thisBy gerard, September 2, 2010 at 11:25 am Link to this comment
Shed shed. At the same time how about dropping:
collateral damage reliable sources
Report thissuspected of being unintended consequences
make no mistake about it
and about 50,000 other journalistic cliches that mask the truth while pretending to reveal it.
By kerryrose, September 2, 2010 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
‘Sensitive’ is not a word that I thought Marcus would value.
Report this