I'm an editor, so a lot of what I do is cut or change words. These are some of the mistakes and misuses I see all the time & how to fix them. This thread is not to shame or subtweet anybody -- I learned many of these mistakes by making them myself. Please add your own favorites!
"Enormity" means something really bad, not something really big.
"Japanese/Brazilian/Finnish/Australian researchers discovered..." Science is the most international endeavor in human history. Any team that makes a discovery worth covering almost certainly includes people who aren't citizens, so instead say: "Researchers in Japan/Brazil/etc."
"Men and women" in almost all circumstances should be "people." The world is over-gendered enough as it is.
"Famous" is a word you almost never need. If a person or event is known to your reader, you don't need to tell them it's famous. If your reader DOESN'T know something, calling it famous risks making your reader feel ignorant or unwelcome in your story.
It's spelled "impostor" rather than "imposter," which I learned only after being quoted in a story about impostor syndrome ... which of course proves I'm a big fraud (but you're not). theopennotebook.com/2016/11/15/fee…
It's fine to use "spawn" metaphorically in some cases, but keep in mind that it literally means fish or frogs ejaculating eggs or sperm. Think twice about "seminal," too.
Avoid "so and so believes" because you don't know what they believe, only what they say. For a science story, you could replace believes with speculates or hypothesizes or suggests ... or just say says.
And in general, the more complicated a subject is, the simpler your words and sentences should be. Let your reader spend their attention on understanding the science, not the elaborate language.
What are some of your favorite common mistakes or awkward bits of language? In science writing or any other type of writing. Thanks for sharing on a day when it helps to have a distraction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Headlines are the most important three to 12 words in any story. Here's where they come from, in case anybody's interested, and some observations about recent trends and misunderstandings (thread)
The writer or videographer or graphic artist (the person whose name, or byline, is at the top of the piece) usually doesn't write the headline. The editor (whose name is probably not on the piece) usually writes the headline.
The same story can have different headlines depending on where you're seeing it. Print headlines have to fit a physical layout with images and other display copy (words that aren't part of the story, like subheadlines or captions)
There's been a shift in science in past 25 years toward more engagement & communication & solutions -- @JaneLubchenco
But when she & other scientists talked to Newt Gingrich about climate change, he wanted to know which policies he could champion that were different from That Al Gore Thing.
Research by @lkfazio shows that repeating false claims makes people more likely to believe them, even if the false claims contradict knowledge people had before they saw the misinformation
Is there a link between "epistemic motivation" and misinfo? Yep, according to research by @dannagal. Trump supporters are more likely to say they value intuition and emotion as a way to get to truth, and to endorse false info. They're not as swayed by data & evidence.
"some of us are trying to understand how to put a wrench in this system and stop the madness"
Platform policies around health and election misinformation have made a difference -- suspensions on Twitter took out accounts spreading misinformation and linked to astroturfing and QAnon (didn't get it all, though)
Substack seems to be attracting a certain set of writers who are arrogant, self-righteous, offended by social justice efforts, and/or just looking for a fight. This thread is about one small part of this pattern: editing, and what contempt for editing says about someone (1/x)
Substack is a platform that lets writers publish what they want, unedited. I get the attraction. It can be painful to hear from an editor that, say, your introduction takes too long to get to the point or your metaphor doesn’t track or your logic has holes in it (2/x)
A good editor identifies the parts that are confusing or unsupported or insensitive and helps fix them. Sure, there are bad editors, but in most cases writers and editors can reach an agreement about structure and language that works well for the editor’s publication (3/x)
One of the many invisible good deeds people deserve more credit for is not kicking down, especially on Twitter, even when it’s tempting. I recently got kicked at by someone with 11x more followers than me, let’s call him Yatt Mglasias. <thread>
I tweeted out a lovely story by some desert ecologists about how movies often present deserts as wastelands, but they’re actually really interesting and rich. The story was pegged to Dune, and my tweet (I realized belatedly) could be read to mean that I didn't understand Dune.
I got dunked on by a few people who hadn’t read the article. Then Yatt tweeted a snide tweet to his half-million followers. Predictably, legions of Yatt fans are now sending me elaborate, misogynistic messages about how stupid I am.