this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
72 points (97.4% liked)

World News

278 readers
646 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be a decent person
  2. No spam
  3. Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

Reports of vomit streaming down windows as more than 100 University of Canterbury students fall ill, with cause of stomach bug being investigated

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would describe 100 people shitting themselves and throwing up as carnage lol. It's not the same carnage left by a warzone, or the carnage left in the wake of a black friday sale, or the carnage that happens in a 10 car pileup.

You can take issue with "slammed" being overused or "carnage" being too flashy or something, but to say it amounts to malpractice and is a result of stupidity or low standards is not really fair imo. People use metaphorical language and hyperbole. It's fine and normal

Also, I linked another article using carnage "incorrectly" and I thought that is what you were referring to. The writing quality is fine so I was not sure why you said it was low

[–] austinfloyd@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I haven't had to write in a news style too often, but headlines (from AP guidelines at least) are meant to stand entirely on their own and without context.

While I agree that language can and should change, the use of hyperbole, slang, or cliches in a headline can negatively impact the clarity of the headline, which is most important.

Does something like decimate or carnage have two widely accepted meanings now? Then as an editor, I would caution against their use in a headline. Something like "Hundreds sickened in suspected mass food poisoning at New Zealand university" seems fine and is without clickbait.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Not a bad point. I think the quotation marks and the subject matter made it clear. However, if there is this much ambiguity in interpretation I think it could be changed justifiably. I still don't think this is some kind of egregious sin, though