• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Clarity and English usage in spots

T

Tom Wells

There is no board for "spots", and most of the spots I refer to are on news/talk, so here goes.

Many national ad campaign spots have a disclaimer near the end stating " Not available in all states."

This means that the item or service mentioned is NOT AVAILABLE. In ALL STATES.

Just where the heck IS it available? Canada? Mexico?

Am I the only one left with a grasp of comprehension? Don't they mean to say " Not available in some states."?
Maybe "available in most states".

When I hear "not available in all states" I truly believe it's NOT available anywhere in any state.

Who decided the non-standard "lazy" usage was to be the new standard?

I wouldn't waste any time upgrading to the new bass-ackwards usage. ??? ???
 
In this day and age no one bothers to check anything. If it makes money it runs on the radio. Example how many tim es have you heard spots clashing together with promos crashing in over syndication? What does it matter as long as you can make money.
 
Hi, Jay. I once spoke with you on telephone on WLS in your "loud" days.
The issue was "hemp smoking" and I stated that it was good for "comtemplative insight".
You were not kind, but I forgive that, as I know you have adapted your responses.

It is obvious that no one checks anything, but is correct usage to much to ask for copywriters?
Are they being paid to use colloquialisms? Not often, so why use a phrase, which when parsed, is the WRONG meaning?

For instance, I will quote Dave Barry as Mr Launguage Person.

" Jake should have never brought no snake to no funeral."

As a triple negative, this is correct. When parsed, Never, No Snake, No Funeral. Even in non-standard english, it reads right.

Maybe it's cause I'm from Chicago. There's an old saying, "Don't never take nothin from nobody you don't know."
If you can figure that one out, you'll know why I prefer straightforward english in spots.
 
I find the "not available in all states" thing to be annoying to begin with because it's discriminatory and makes the states in which the advertised service is not available feel like foreign countries. I especially hear the "not available in all states" disclaimer in commercials having to do with credit card relief and paying off your debt. I live in Hawaii, so let's pretend the credit card relief service is not available in Hawaii. First, that's discrimination because they're saying something like, "Sorry, you live in Hawaii. Therefore, you are not eligible for the credit card relief service." Second, Hawaii feels like a foreign country when in fact it's part of the United States. All 50 states belong to the United States. Therefore, all services should be available in all states. The folks making services unavailable in certain states are acting like the states are independent countries. All 50 states belong the the country of the United States. Therefore, business people need to get their act together and make their services available in all states.
 
Sometimes though it's not the business but the state law that makes something not available in a certain area.
Like when they have national giveaways and promos at, say, a gas station, there's always like two states listed in the fine print that none of the prizes are available in, usually up in the northeast or California. Then for those states there might be some kind of phone-in contest you can phone in for, or you can write in for additional chances (one per envelope).

It seems like there's nothing anywhere anymore that just says what it means, and applies to everyone in all times and locations and situations. There's always a disclaimer for everything, whether it's a giveaway, or a politician's speech, or someone phrasing something so it doesn't offend some group....
 
Tom Wells said:
Maybe it's cause I'm from Chicago. There's an old saying, "Don't never take nothin from nobody you don't know."
If you can figure that one out, you'll know why I prefer straightforward english in spots.
Click to expand...

Or the corollary (for those who are seeking a job, from a CEO to a janitor): "We don't want nobody that nobody sent."

If you're from Chicago, you know exactly what that means, just like your statement earlier. That's standard Chicago-ese.

So who you crappin'? (j/k) ;D
 
Ivan Badget said:
All 50 states belong to the United States. Therefore, all services should be available in all states. The folks making services unavailable in certain states are acting like the states are independent countries. All 50 states belong the the country of the United States.
Click to expand...

I think you need to listen to more news/talk programs, especially the ones where the hosts explain what a "federal republic" is. The simple fact is that in this federal republic, the 50 states are all sovereign. The Constitution enumerates what powers the central federal government has, and what powers are reserved to the states. One of the most important things that news/talk format radio stations do is to educate people on such things, which they should have learned in their junior high school Civics classes.

Why do you think your drivers license is from Hawaii?
 
At the risk of sounding like Edwin Newman (remember him?)...

This thread hits on (upon?) a favorite topic of mine: how alleged "professional" broadcasters mangle the language. I'm not talking about "local color" here (like the previous "Chicago-ese" example); I'm talking about out and out ignorance, like when a newscaster descibes a "brutal murder." Seriously, is there any other kind? Can one be "gregariously" murdered? ;D
 
Re: At the risk of sounding like Edwin Newman (remember him?)...

jimwalsh2001 said:
I'm talking about out and out ignorance, like when a newscaster descibes a "brutal murder." Seriously, is there any other kind? Can one be "gregariously" murdered? ;D
Click to expand...

I don't know about "gregariously" murdered, but for a murder to be truly "brutal", there must be some serious violence, like being beaten to death with a baseball bat. A murder in which the victim experiences lots of pain before finally dying would be "brutal". A murder that's quick and painless would not be "brutal". That might be hair-splitting, but that's what the subtleties of connotative meanings of words is all about.

A broadcaster who truly understood the language would understand that.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom