By Paul Bernish

If there is one aspect of journalism that drives me to distraction, it is shorthand euphemisms in news stories.

Examples?

“Voter fraud,” is a phrase often employed in accounts of legislation to change state election laws, as in changes are “needed” to prevent voter fraud. You’ll find this catch-phrase in regular use in reporting on legislative activities related to voting and election procedures. The problem, of course, is that real voter fraud in the United States is very nearly non-existent.

“Single payer” health care systems is a euphemism found in very nearly every news article or editorial about America’s flawed health insurance system; it is usually meant to describe the more comprehensive way in which other nations handle health care. Trouble is, you’d be hard-pressed to find in the MSM (aka mainstream media) explanations that actually describe what the heck a single payer system is in, say, Sweden. There is plenty of information available on line about single payer systems, but very little of it filters into daily coverage, leaving the phrase as an poorly defined definition of an non-explained alternative.

“Immigration,” as most often reported as “immigration reform,” is a catch-all tag used to describe a vague solution to an enormously complicated political, social and cultural issue. What solution? And, in fact, who is an immigrant? American folklore celebrates our “melting pot,” history of successive waves of immigrants, from Europe mostly, who helped build our national heritage. But that’s not what we’re talking about today. Immigrants is a pejorative, in that the words “immigration” and “illegal” are forever joined in a phrase that can be misleading and overly vague, but also incendiary.

Why do these catch phrases persist, and what difference do they make?

They persist because journalism itself is a form of shorthand, where brevity is valued so that readers and viewers can quickly get to the gist of whatever it is they are looking at. They owe their origins to headline writers (I used to be one) whose endless daily challenge is to compress complex narrative into a very brief summary. Editors like the phrases because it helps move the story along, but of course, much is lost in terms of nuance, accuracy and (in many instances) fairness or objectivity. It’s not helping matters that Twitter bases its entire raison d’être on shorthand comments and hashtag subject matters.

Shorthand phrases also reflect a growing laziness or sloppiness in news writing and commentary. As more and more news content shifts from print and broadcast to online, stories are rated by search algorithms, which are in effect keywords and phrases that servers look for to rank page views, which in itself is a shorthand way to describe readership. Publishers and news organizations desperately seek steadily increasing page views, and as a result, content is more and more about context than wholeness.

Shorthand journalism also contributes, in my view, to the erosion of support by voters for many of the institutions of society. Claims of voter fraud, for example, have prompted many Americans to conclude that election outcomes themselves are fraudulent.

Some use of shorthand phrases is so ingrained in today’s media that getting rid of the offending descriptors is bound to fail. But what should happen in the media — yet isn’t — is better writing and editing. I might also suggest better reporting. When a fulminating state senator claims he is trying to prevent voter fraud, reporters and editors should challenge such statements and not simply repeat them. What voter fraud? Where? Who was defrauded? The phrase “single payer” should only be employed in articles about health care if the reporter and/or editor is prepared to describe what that alternative actually is. There are, in fact, dozens of different health care programs in existence in Europe and elsewhere; journalism (online or otherwise) owes to to their readers and viewers to compare and contrast the U.S. health care system with those extant in other nations.

I am one who believes that the fifth estate — journalism — has an obligation to provide intelligent, comprehensive and balanced accounts of news events. It must act as the eyes and ears of the general public, describing, explaining and interpreting a very complex and fast-changing world. That it increasingly is failing in this obligation, by employing meaningless or inflammatory catch phrases, has not only coarsened public dialogue, but given a free pass to those who prefer propaganda and talking points to clear communications and transparent interactions.

In other words, informing and explaining requires that reporters and editors embark on an extensive journey in pursuit of the truth. There’s no shorthand way around it.