- "Nosey Parker"
- "Ma Barker"
- "Norma Desmond"
- "Palin’s Imelda Marcos moment"
- "Hillary’s inner Eve Harrington"
An article by Ralph Keyes details this problem. Keyes describes the use of outdated references, which he calls "retrotalk." He believes that it alienates young readers and immigrants. As he discribes in the artitle:
"Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do?"
Many journalists are guilty of this behavior. In his article he lists examples from a variety of newspapers: Minneapolis Star Tribune, New York Times and Washington Post. The OP-Ed pages of the New York Times, which Keyes calls the "citadel of retrotalk", is especially bad.
While editing we should mindful of obscure references. Just because we get a reference, doesn't mean the readers will. Journalists should strive to make their writing as clear as possible. When writing contians these references, it's doing the readers a disservice.
Very interesting issue, and good point! I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels kind of stupid when some this stuff flies right over my head…
ReplyDeleteYa, I really like this post. I think it's very true of certain columnists. You have to walk a thin line of trying to be creative while at the same time not alienating people. I think sports columns can do the same thing. Basic jargon is acceptable, but there's a point where only the five sports guys at the newspaper are going to understand what the heck you just said.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue for the use of such references. Whenever I see a reference to something of which I have no idea what it is, I go and look it up. I read about it, and then I know about it. I become more educated. I think things like this are beneficial for the continuing cultural learning process--and that includes pop culture! So I, on the other hand, look for these kinds of references with excitement.
ReplyDeleteWe may not recognize these references, but I don't think it's that big of a problem because it's in a column. If it was a regular story trying to be cute, I could see the problem. But someone reading a column should be aware that the writer has the privilege to write what or how they want.
ReplyDeleteLike the poster before me said, you can go look it up. And I think people would if they enjoy the columnist.
For example, there are a ton of references to older TV shows in "Scrubs", but because I am a fan of the show I am interested in looking up what those mean and expanding my interests.
Wow, I never thought about that before! But I definitely know what you're talking about. I hate it when columnists use references from the 1890s. It definitely turns me off from wanting to read their columns anymore.
ReplyDeleteAs for a solution to the problem, I think the editors can help. All they have to do is say just that to the writer. Just tell him/her that it risks alienating readers, but I'm sure you'd never do that on purpose, riiiight? It won't be an attack on the writer's prose, so it won't be offensive. I didn't ever get offended when I was told to use less slang in my columns. I knew my editors didn't think I made a bad point or that I was dumb, so there was no problemo.
I agree with Andrew -- in a feature or column, it's fine to challenge the reader a bit. BTW, Dowd wasn't just retro, she was vintage. Nosey Parker and Ma Barker date from the 1930s!
ReplyDelete