Dec 13th, 2009
Setting a threshold for “old” words
I am in the middle of a tedious editing project.
Flickr image from user vivoandando
Many documents have been poured over. Much has been learned - by me. Some phrases have been changed. Also, by me.
Hopefully, both products - me and the documents - have been improved.
A problem I’ve been mulling:
New terminology reflects a gradual shift in publicly accepted thinking and emerging realities. As Innovation Journalism playboy David Nordfors wrote in 2007, innovation requires new words (iPhone, smart phone, Twitter) and a public that can use those words in conversation.
Simultaneously, as we integrate new words the existing realities move toward becoming “old” and the terms we use to describe the existing reality become stale.
This is a problem for editors, who have to decide what phrases are passe, which represent commonly accepted vernacular, and what terms represent still-fringe nomenclature.
At the moment, it still seems acceptable for media workers and academics to use the terms:
New Media
Cross-Media
Cross-platform
Hybrid media
Online media
Internet media
Online Television
Which of these these terms fair and accurate? A bit passe, some of them, I have begun to think.
Here I begin to feel like a climate change scientist: Can I describe a particular time frame in which these terms will go bad? If so, how? (With a degree in linguistics?)
New media doesn’t particularly seem that new anymore; the term is particularly confounding because “old media” isn’t an apt characterization of anything, really. To deem “old media” and “print media” synonymous would be a cheat, inept.
I do like the phrase “legacy media brands”, I like how it hints at “the establishment”; those large branded chains that are slow to change.
Separately: In the face of: free papers, the free press and freesheets — what’s the most succinct term for papers that cost money? Paid-for papers?
Anyone?
Snail Paper?
Actually, I’d just stick to newspaper. The new-speak issue will explode equally to the boom in technology. Soon, we’ll all sound like the techno-babble of Geordi LaForge when we are merely describing our morning wake up routine.
Greetings, fellow breakfast appreciator!
I totally hear you on techno-babble and the need to avoid it.
The set of 50 articles I’m editing examine the “media landscape” of as many countries. Every other article seems to mention free newspapers (as a “trend”, in terms of advertising market, etc). Then, in reference to newspapers that are not free, the authors use the term “paid-for newspapers”.
While it’s communicative, that just feels clunky. I’ve yet to find a better phrase, though.
In terms of “newspaper”, I wish the English language had more to offer; it’s the only language where the word for “newspaper” implies a particular medium.
I like “periodico” and “Zeitung” much better.