A weatherman on television will use "up to" when he's describing a storm. "Up to 18 inches of snow fell." How little that tells me about the storm. One freak train of squalls off a lake can drop 18 inches of snow on one hill. What about the state and its cities? How deeply were they covered?
The television pitchman uses it. "Lose up to 30 percent more fat." I have no idea what that means.
If I hadn't been educated about storms, or taught to listen critically to pitchmen, I'd have been saying, "Wow, some storm, some diet program. Those are big numbers." And I, if uneducated, would have responded similarly to the Times statement. "Wow, what a generous offer. That's a big number."
It's pretty obvious that the pitchman is selling his diet plan and the weatherman his weather. "Isn't our storm, our news, exciting? More exciting than the Fox news?" Is the reporter trying to sell me on the generosity of Greece's creditors?
I doubt it. It's probably an accident. But even accidental words can trigger dangerous trains of thought. I see an uneducated mind going from generous creditors to unreasonable borrowers to all the stereotypes: prudent, hardworking Northerners, lazy profligate Southerners, grasshoppers, ants. The question is not whether the stereotype fits; it's whether a newspaper is going to contribute to it.
Maybe it's not an accident. The editors have let "up to 70 percent" through four times already. And it's catching on. A lot of papers follow the Times's lead. I know that excuses a scolding (always fun when it's the great NYT) but I'll settle for a warning: If you keep doing this, Gray Lady, up to 100% of the educated readers in every American household are going to be very disappointed in you.
Inteterestingly, Bloomberg reports it as `about 70 percent.' Sounds more solid and, given that our reporters follow this closely, likely to be true.
ReplyDeleteYes, "about" would give me what I need. Good for Bloomberg.
Delete