Thank you to those who sent me their news clichés. Some annoyances were more general and less news-specific. I'll deal with the newsy ones first.
One reader mentioned embedded. Merriam-Webster defines the military "embedding" as "to attach (a journalist) to a military unit for the purpose of covering a conflict."
The reader suggested we simply use on assignment with. I wondered when the shorthand came in, because the military is good at such things. This explanation was in Britannica online: "Embedded journalism was introduced by the U.S. Department of Defense during the Iraq War (2003-2011) as a strategic response to criticisms about the low level of access granted to reporters during the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) and the early years of the Afghanistan War (which began in 2001)."
"On assignment with" probably would be fine to use. Embedded is probably a trendier word.
One reader passed along a couple of nonsense phrases that would be better off in the dustbin of history (dustbin of history is the single news cliché I can abide).
"That being said"
"At the end of the day"
"When all is said and done"
These three phrases can easily be replaced with "still."
I heard from several readers about "it is what it is." Pure uselessness. Do people feel wiser when they say this? Would you use it isn't what it isn't?
One reader mentioned the utter waste of a phrase: "when it comes to." She is so right. In nearly all cases, it's a long phrase that can either be omitted or shortened significantly.
Here are examples from The Washington Post:
"Both Buffalo and Kent State are ranked at the top of the MAC when it comes to scoring."
Just as easy to understand is: "Both Buffalo and Kent State are ranked at the top of the MAC in scoring."
"It's hard to imagine what 2021 will hold when it comes to money or the economy."
How about: "Who can imagine what 2021 will hold for money or the economy?"
The reader is also painfully accurate commenting that the tired phrase is another way of saying, "My topic is [fill in blank] and I don't know how to start writing about that, so ..."
"When it comes to mental and emotional health, older adults in the United States are showing resilience and persevering despite struggles with loneliness and isolation, the latest self-reported results in an ongoing study suggest."
Just say: "Older adults in the United States are showing resilience mentally and emotionally, and are persevering despite struggles with loneliness and isolation, the latest self-reported results in an ongoing study suggest."
One reader commented on the overuse of "actually." Some would argue that it is used to emphasize a fact. To me, it's similar to adding I swear or really somewhere in the sentence. Why assume that the reader expects you to lie?
From The Post:
"If you're craving a lemon cookie that actually tastes like lemon, this is it."
I wouldn't say: If you're craving a lemon cookie that tastes like lemon, I swear, this is it.
You can get the point across with: If you're craving a lemon cookie that tastes like lemon, this is it.
A couple more from The Post where you can remove the actually.
"7 private islands you can actually rent."
"Thomas Jefferson actually did enjoy dancing (and playing violin), but he hated the pretentiousness, deal-making and wheedling for jobs that often went along with dances in the political realm."
One reader mentioned "optics." This one is so silly.
The scientific definition of optics is "a science that deals with the genesis and propagation of light, the changes that it undergoes and produces, and other phenomena closely associated with it."
But a second definition is "the aspects of an action, policy, or decision (as in politics or business) that relate to public perceptions."
In news broadcasts, optics are nearly always associated with bad things.
"Pentagon officials and other national and city leaders are very sensitive to the optics of the U.S. military appearing to arrest or lay hands on American citizens on U.S. soil."
"But the optics — yikes. This is a massive medical undertaking to stage a football season that will prop up athletic departments and make millions of dollars — for everybody but the players."
We hear the word "disenfranchise" a lot. It doesn't mean taking away one's McDonald's franchise or one's major league team.
According to Merriam-Webster, although disenfranchise "does broadly signify depriving someone of any of a number of legal rights, it is most often used today of withholding the right to vote, or of the diminished social or political status of a marginalized group."
The reader who emailed me about this said the word is too vague. Instead of saying disenfranchised, how about being more specific? If a person is worried about losing the right to vote, say so. If a person is being left out of decision-making, say that.
The Associated Press noted that disenfranchised is also being used incorrectly in other contexts. For example, in this sentence: Investors have become disenfranchised with active management. The AP editors said: "Disenfranchised means deprived of the voting right or active influence. Stockholders in public corporations normally vote on board candidates and some other policies. If views of investors are being disregarded by management, then disillusioned or disappointed with management would seem to be more precise, rather than disenfranchised."
Some examples from The Post using disenfranchise:
"What has brought Belarusians of all stripes together in protest ... has been a shared sense that they have been disenfranchised, and anger that their votes or livelihoods have been stolen."
That sentence uses disenfranchised, then defines the term.
"The Postal Service's warnings of potential disenfranchisement came as the agency undergoes a sweeping organizational and policy overhaul amid dire financial conditions."
That sentence could have been more specific.
I'll write more about clichés from your emails next week.
Sources include Britannica, Indeed, Merriam-Webster, The Associated Press Stylebook, The Washington Post. Reach Bernadette at