m e m o r a n d u m
28.8.05

from: pb dot c

to: america

cc: hans bungle

re: "terror" is not an adjective

The word ‘terror’ has got to be the most misused in the English language since, oh let me do a little empirical research: on or about Sept. 12, 2001.

Nowadays headlines and TV news chyrons scream: ‘Terror raids by police.’ ‘Terror attack.’ ‘War on Terror.’

Terror. Isn’t that something a child feels when thinking about phantom alligators under the bed? Isn’t that something that strikes the hearts of opposing ballplayers when they see Sidney Ponson on the mound? More to the point, perhaps, isn’t terror something one feels when the terrorists have scored a victory?

Indeed, I remember feeling some measure of terror on Sept. 11, 2001. But I don’t remember any terror attacks. (Anxiety attacks, sure.) So what happened to terrorism attacks? What happened to terrorist plots? When did these critical suffixes become optional? When did the meanings change? Was there a secret meeting I missed? I work in the news business, and I frequently hear editors proclaim that ‘terror’ is a great word for headlines, "because it’s shorter." And that’s certainly true: It is shorter. But I’d say in 17 cases out of 18, this shortened version is used out of pure laziness.

Would you use the word ‘broke’ in a headline instead of ‘broker’? Why not? It’s shorter! Why not indeed? Because it means something different. Well, the same applies to ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism.’ According to the dictionary, ‘terror’ means, ‘a state of intense fear.’ Or a person who instills fear, such as ‘a terror on the baseball diamond.’ Whereas the definition of ‘terrorism’ is ‘the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.’

Not only is it wrong, but it often borders on absurd. Take this actual headline: ‘Terror Fears Prompt Crackdown.’ Reading this, some may be picturing increased government scrutiny to ward off terrorists. But I picture very afraid neurotics running around without any pants.

So what are we girding against with our profusion of barricades, color-coded alerts, and random riflings through backpacks? Terror? Terror, it seems, creeps past such bulwarks, even if terrorism cannot.

[This incidentally is reason #347-b why George W. Bush is a disgrace to this country and to mankind. He misnomered an entire global conflict, right down to the Pentagon’s politically-inspired "Global War on Terror" medals and headstones. Following suit for reasons that get into what I call ‘a desperate & futile attempt to give this president the benefit of the doubt,’ the news media, taking its cue from our galactically dim chief executive, abrogated its sense of correct English. And of course, the CNNs of the world cheerfully pile on extra helpings of ‘terror’ every day, since one can easily surmise that the word ‘terror’ probably makes channel surfers pause a bit as they hunt for painfully sparse nuggets of redemption on television.]

Its popularity aside, this tide of terror still rings a sour note with me. It seems to me that, if one were to wage a global war on terror, one would be more interested in sending out armies of compassionate people to read gentle books to children who are scared to go to bed, whereas a ‘global war on terrorists,’ or a ‘global war on terrorism,’ might involve finding a fella named Osama who may or may not currently be near Tora Bora, Afghanistan, we’re not really sure. [Grrr.]

To my colleagues, who are news editors, I can be heard – albeit less and less frequently – saying this same thing. Do they listen? No. They just keep typing ‘Terror’ over and over again. Even the vaunted editors over at the New York Times seem to have given up. They have substituted terror for terrorism. And - this truly hurts - even at the New Yorker they’re doing it. The New Fucking Yorker, where they still write ‘coördinate’ with an umlaut, now regularly uses the word ‘terror’ as an adjective. What if you went out on the town dressed to the nines but substituted your cummerbund with a pink Wal-Mart fanny pack? That would be the fashion equivalent of paying such close attention to usage and then using ‘terror’ as an adjective.

Some of you might be tempted to find some edition of some dictionary – probably unabridged – somewhere and show me how the word ‘terror,’ may be used as an adjective in its 3rd or 4th iteration. I reject this with a kick of my foot to the nearest rock. It isn’t so. Unabridged dictionaries just like to cover their asses is all. And with such luminaries as the aforementioned media outlets having abandoned the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ at such a rapid pace, it’s probably futile for me to even bother pointing out this slippage.

Nevertheless, I do.

I do realize that linguistic mutations are important as language moves forward. Take the case of flash mobbers. Who wants to go around saying ‘flash mobbers’? It doesn’t roll of the tongue very well. So in an essay a few years back, I shortened it to ‘assholes.’ And the name stuck.

But in the case of ‘terror,’ let’s please take a deep breath and remember that words have meaning. And meaning is important.