Vol. 4, No. 811
A MINOR PROBLEM WITH OUR USE OF
MAJOR
Allan R. Andrews
American Reporter Correspondent
Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON -- Amid the recent problems that have plagued
journalism,
from paparazzi to unnamed sources, few have been as persistent
as
reporters continuing to use the adjective "major" in
an attempt to beef
up stories.
Surely, the world has noticed that according to press reports
politicians never give "minor" speeches -- though most
surely do -- and
that any event worthy of media coverage has to be a "major"
event.
Hollywood has a history of producing only "major" films
since the big
studios stopped making B-pictures.
The definition of something major -- a major speech, for example
--
seems to be: One the media determines is worth reporting.
A few years ago, Harry Levins of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote
a
humorous column about a "major new sex fact." Levins
concluded early in
his piece that the word major "ought to rank high on everybody's
list
of Most Overused Words."
Not only is the word overused, it provides a bias whenever
it appears
in a news story.
"Major" has become an annoying ally of media hype, with
which fair and
objective reporting should have no traffic.
This morning I heard a radio newscaster reporting on a gubernatorial
debate in California.
Not only did he label the debate "major" because California
is judged
to be a litmus test for gubernatorial elections across the nation,
but
the newscaster added the note that the California debate was not
to be
covered by any of the "major" networks.
Set aside for a moment any resentment non-Californians may feel
concerning the litmus-test judgment, the newscaster can't have
been
watching much television lately. Cable tv has clouded more than
ever
just which comprise the major networks. Does it include the Fox
Network? ESPN? Turner Broadcasting? HBO? In the world of cable
tv,
major network seems a useless category.
As if to underscore the folly of determining what's major and
what's
minor, the Associated Press reported this week that Cable News
Network
had signed talk-show host Larry King to a $7 million-per-year
contract,
bringing him to a salary equal to Dan Rather's at CBS News.
I guess we'll now have to refer to King as a "major"
talk-show host.
(As an aside, King's salary boost raises some suspicion of insider
trading when one realizes that Rather is a frequent stand-in for
King
on the CNN talk show.)
I don't recall if AP used the adjective, but somewhere,
some writer
will refer to King's contract as a "major" step for
CNN.
A look at the dictionary reveals many facets of the word major.
Apart from its use as a rank in the military, a label for one's
field
of study in college and as a musical category of predominant chording,
the word used as an adjective refers to something that is "greater
in
dignity, rank, importance or interest," or to something "greater
in
number, quantity, or extent."
It's difficult for me to see how an election debate or speech
can be
pre-judged "major" according to these definitions.
I might concede its use in regard to the networks, but I think
there
are more useful adjectives, such as larger or older.
Don't get me wrong. I still believe there are major
leagues and minor
leagues; major poets and minor poets; Ursa Major and Ursa Minor,
major
issues and minor issues. In fact, this issue I'm raising about
major is
a minor -- but irritating -- issue.
Journalists need to attend more carefully to inserting adjectives
such
as "major" in news stories. To do so may be a form of
surrendering to
the pr flacks.
Use of "major" is a subtle weapon in the spin-doctor's
arsenal of
biased buzzwords, and journalists who take up the "major"
chorus become
unwitting allies to twisting the truth.
In a final mea culpa observation, I've noted that The American
Reporter
has claimed it wants to become a "major" international
newspaper. Well,
that means we're striving to be the best -- major or not, and
even the
best need to be forgiven for minor lapses.
At any rate, I'd like journalists to join me in increased vigilance
by
conducting a moratorium on use of the adjective "major."
It will be a
minor but important step in the right direction for our profession.
Allan R. Andrews is a news editor
for The Stars & Stripes in Washington, D.C. He can be reached
at allan.andrews@reporters.net
[Return
to Online Columns]