Main

Excerpt

Quiz

Reviews

Press

Colleagues

Readers

Internet

Purchase

Editor & Publisher

In mid-April Editor & Publishers – the leading trade publication for journalists – ran my op-ed about retroterms used by journalists. This ignited a firestorm of response, pro, con, and somewhere in between. Here is the op-ed itself, followed by a representative sample of responses on and offline. An interesting pattern can be discerned. Initial responses, from older journalists, were mostly outraged. A second wave – primarily from bloggers – defended the op ed’s premise. After that it was back and forth.

See for yourself. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003961768 Editor & Publisher 4 13 09 Eddie Haskell and

Howard Beale -- Go Home! Journos Are Alienating Readers With 'Retro' References By Ralph Keyes NEW YORK (Commentary) Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is often compared to Eddie Haskell. This is fine if you realize that Haskell was the know-it-all neighbor of Beaver Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver." Those who grew up watching that show might also get the recent Los Angeles Times reference to the “Cleaverization” of Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow’s characterization of herself as “a bit of a Wally Cleaver.” Members of an even earlier generation may even know what one auto industry analyst meant when she commented about the scrutiny of GM's books: "This is green-eyeshade stuff." (Such eyeshades were once worn by accountants to protect their eyes from glaring overhead light bulbs.) This is retrotalk: employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar to younger readers. Or immigrants. Or anyone at all, for that matter. Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. Even common catch phrases that hearken back to earlier times may be puzzling to younger readers: stuck in a groove, 98-pound weakling, drop a dime, bigger than a breadbox, or a tough row to hoe. (As one giggling third-grader asked when his teacher used this one, “Isn’t 'ho' a bad word?”) When a Minneapolis Star Tribune article included the line, “And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?” many readers wondered why the paper would pose such an off-the-wall question. (Lawyers have long considered it a classic query that can’t be answered without self-incrimination.) Making sense of the many verbal fossils in our lexicon requires familiarity with events that left behind a linguistic residue. We don’t all have that familiarity. As The Miami Herald‘s Leonard Pitts once discovered, “Everyone knows that” can be a risky assumption. Pitts’ editor, who grew up in a home without television, challenged his reference to Mayberry in a column. Wouldn’t readers wonder, “Where’s that?” she asked about the iconic small-town setting of "The Andy Griffith Show." Retrotalk is ubiquitous among journalists of a certain age. By using it they set themselves apart from those born in the last three or four decades. On "Meet the Press," New York Times columnist David Brooks said about Hillary Clinton, “In the first debate she’s Emily Post, now she’s Howard Beale,” referring to the late etiquette maven and the angry protagonist of the 1976 movie "Network." In a recent column Brooks wrote, “And not to get Rod McKuen on you or anything …” Say what? Inquiring younger minds want to know. Last year, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel called a press conference amid speculation that he would announce his intention to run for president, then said only that he was reviewing his options. Washington Post writer Dana Milbank called Hagel’s event “the political equivalent of Geraldo opening Al Capone’s vault,” alluding to Geraldo Rivera’s 1986 discovery on live television that this vault was empty. Post columnist Eugene Robinson later said on "Meet the Press" that if Hillary Clinton were to not only speak at a black church but eat there as well, “it could be a kind of reverse 'Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?'” (referencing the 1967 movie). Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do? In a profile, media writer Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post called NBC analyst Chuck Todd “the Jimmy the Greek of politics,” referring to the once-prominent gambler and sports commentator who died in 1996. When a New York Times feature noted the “Joe Friday manner” of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, one that conveyed a “just-the-facts appeal,” the implicit assumption was that every reader got these allusions to the old radio and TV show "Dragnet." The Times is a citadel of retrotalk, on its Op-Ed page especially. Columnist Frank Rich once commented that George W. Bush had “a slight, almost Chauncey Gardiner quality,” referring to Peter Sellers’ simple-minded character in the 1979 movie "Being There." The Queen of Retrotalk is Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Dozens of examples I’ve harvested from her columns include “Nosey Parker,” “Ma Barker,” “Norma Desmond,” “Palin’s Imelda Marcos moment” and “Hillary’s inner Eve Harrington.” To describe how it felt to drive through Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and see no women on the streets, Dowd invoked a “Rod Serling–type feeling.” Perhaps such news coverage should include a warning label: “If you’re under 40, certain references may need to be Googled.” Better yet, each such story could include a glossary of retroterms at the end, for the benefit of younger readers. Ralph Keyes (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is the author of "I Love It When You Talk Retro: Hoochie Coochie, Double Whammy, Drop a Dime and the Forgotten Origins of American Speech," just published by St. Martin's Press. He has written 15 books including the bestseller "Is There Life After High School?" For further information go to www.ralphkeyes.com. http://www.eandppub.com/2009/04/journos-time-to-retire-howard-beale-and-eddie-haskell.html The E & P Pub Journos: Time to Retire Howard Beale and Eddie Haskell! April 13, 2009 Fun, but valid, piece by Ralph Keyes over at E&P (drawn form his new book) on how older journos alienate readers/viewers by constantly relying on "retro" references, names or terms that have grown musty and go right over the heads of younger or ethnic audiences. And don't use "tough row to hoe" when some will think you are talking about a "ho." And Glenn Beck is no Howard Beale, anyway, so that's two reasons to quit that. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003962016 Readers Respond to 'E&P' Commentary Hitting 'Retro' References in the Media By Greg Mitchell April 14, 2009 NEW YORK A commentary posted here yesterday by Ralph Keyes drew considerable reaction, with letters to E&P and other sites that linked to it. Here is a selection of our letters. * You make a good point about using outdated references. But speaking as a 54-year-old ex-newspaper reporter, there's also an argument that recognizing and understanding bygone cultural references is part of being informed -- precisely what is being lost as younger people stop reading newspapers and mass media of all varieties splinters into niches and micro-niches. How far would you take this? Should young people be able to get references to "On the Road?" Edward R. Murrow? "Citizen Kane"? Bill Walker Berkeley, CA * Why are these references merely self-congratulatory signifiers of boomer narcissism as opposed to cultural memes that reasonably sophisticated readers should be aware of? If young'uns don't know "Sunset Boulevard" or "All About Eve" or any of a hundred other examples of journalistic shorthand, their lives are the poorer for it. Why should writers bowdlerize their language rather than inspire readers to go and look something upon? And all of us who have allowed a generation to grow up believing that anything that happened "before their time" is de facto of little interest are the Great Deprivers. Adam Hanft * I like Eddie Haskell but i also liked your column .... How about the recent AP story on the new White House dog that started something like 'Bo, this is no jest'? Whew! Colin Flaherty * I just read Ralph Keyes article about journalists using retro references in their copy. Frankly I am appalled by this article. As if there aren't enough dumb and uninformed people of all ages in this country, does Mr. Keyes have to contribute to the "dumbing down of America?" Oh, excuse me, isn't that a retro reference, too? * I disagree with Mr. Keyes assessment of "retro-speak." I find short visual allusions, particularly when they allude to pop culture, make political discussion and reporting more consumer friendly, not less.Perhaps someone doesn't "get" an allusion to Tracy Flick, Eddie Haskell or Capone's Vault. They'll look it up on the Internet. It is a much more efficient way to express an idea and not get bogged down in explaining a particular thought or idea, that typically conveys the idea in a more complete and compelling manner than a more long-winded version. Dan de Carbonel Salem, Oregon * As a 40-something columnist, I had two reactions to your latest offering in Editor and Publisher. First, there is no doubt too many references - retro or otherwise - is nothing more than lazy journalism, especially when you compare politics to television shows or movies. But ...Retro talk has it's place. I grew up during the 1970s in cities on the east coast. To say the newspaper culture was a vibrant part of our lives would be understatement. We read the columnists, both news and sports. And one of the ways we learned about our past was when a columnist alluded to it. Breslin alluding to mobsters and corrupt politicians past, Gammons comparing a rookie shortstop to a player we had never heard of. We went out and found out about the people the columnists alluded to. We asked adults, went to the library, read other stories. I'm sorry, Mr. Keyes, but in the end your argument smacks of the old "readers are stupid" canard. They aren't. In fact, thanks to twitter and the internet, many readers can make instant connections. I never saw an episode of "Leave it to Beaver." Before my time. But I get the reference and always have. It's part of a shared cultural (albeit pop-cultural) past. Perhaps more people should know about Nora Desmond or Jimmy the Greek or Imelda Marcos. Moreover, maybe they are willing to find out. Reading, after all, should challenge, enrage, inform, perplex and comfort us. Don't ever assume readers aren't willing to work a little. Tom Loewy The Galesburg Register-Mail http://www.poynter.org/article_feedback/article_feedback_list.asp?user=&id=161786#28154 Poynter Online Journalists are advised to cut back on their retrotalk Lazy writing Posted by David Vossbrink The question isn't about using either retro or current pop culture references. It's about lazy writing. Time to trot that old retro guy Orw... The question isn't about using either retro or current pop culture references. It's about lazy writing. Time to trot that old retro guy Orwell, and reread his "Politics and the English Language" (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm): "(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. "(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do. "(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. "(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. "(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. "(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. "These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable." You guys sound like broken records Posted by Dave Wilson Thank you. I'm here all year... Thank you. I'm here all year... Pardon me while I have a Rube Goldberg moment Posted by Ed Murrieta This topic jumps the shark. Meanwhile, readers tune out in droves. This topic jumps the shark. Meanwhile, readers tune out in droves. http://henrykisor.blogspot.com The Reluctant Blogger Retrotalk April 14, 2009 A few years ago a journalist, professor and contemporary of mine told me, "I knew I was getting old when I compared somebody to Hermann Goering and my students all responded, "Who?" That was understandable, although depressing -- World War II was their grandfathers' war and Vietnam was their fathers.' Their own would be Iraq I and II. Depressing not because the students were ignorant (they weren't, really, just young) but because many references with which journalists salt their work are bound to become obscure as time goes on. Not all college students, let alone high schoolers, have taken a survey course in modern European history; Hitler they might know, but not necessarily his henchmen. Bigfoot reporters and commentators tend to be in their fifties and even sixties, and they often seem to be writing for their own generations. Is it any wonder readers under 40 don't know who Illya Kuryakin was? Barney Fife? Or the phrase "drop a dime"? "Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions," writes Ralph Keyes in Editor & Publisher. He calls it "retrotalk" and suggests that those who unconsciously use a lot of it in their writing are helping chase away younger readers. I'll go along with this, but with a caveat: Much of what may seem outdated to some observers is actually an important part of our zeitgeist, or cultural heritage, and young people ought not to be insulted by easy assumptions that they don't know what we're talking about. Keyes cites as retrotalk Frank Rich's comment in the New York Times "that George W. Bush had 'a slight, almost Chauncey Gardiner quality,' referring to Peter Sellers' simple-minded character in the 1979 movie 'Being There.'" I'd argue that interest in classic films cuts across all age lines, and that just about every sentient being over 18 has either rented the movie or seen it on late-night TV. Yes, let's be careful about our pop-culture references, but let's also not throw the baby out with the bath water. That's not a retrophrase, just a comfortable cliche that has, er, stood the test of time. http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-editors-desk/the-editors-desk/2009/04/article-advises-journalists-to-stop-using-dated-phrases-and-words/ stltoday.com the #1 St. Louis website 04.14.2009 Article advises journalists to stop using dated phrases and words By: Steve Parker St. Louis Post-Dispatch A column on Editor & Publisher feels a bit like a trivia night. The article advises journalists to stop using “retro references” that probably are lost on most younger readers. A bit of a Wally Cleaver. Eddie Haskell. Bigger than a breadbox. The Jimmy the Greek of politics. Nosey Parker. Ma Barker. The political equivalent of Geraldo opening Al Capone’s vault. The article by Ralph Keyes is titled “Eddie Haskell and Howard Beale — Go Home! Journos Are Alienating Readers With ‘Retro’ References.” Keyes is the author of 15 books, including “I Love It When You Talk Retro: Hoochie Coochie, Double Whammy, Drop a Dime and the Forgotten Origins of American Speech.” Keyes writes: Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do? Today, Editor & Publisher carries reader responses to Keyes’ advice. Many think there’s value in cultural references. For example, one reader says: You make a good point about using outdated references. But speaking as a 54-year-old ex-newspaper reporter, there’s also an argument that recognizing and understanding bygone cultural references is part of being informed — precisely what is being lost as younger people stop reading newspapers and mass media of all varieties splinters into niches and micro-niches. How far would you take this? Should young people be able to get references to “On the Road?” Edward R. Murrow? “Citizen Kane”? http://rrklicki.blogspot.com/2009/04/ralph-keyes-brings-up-interesting-point.html klickimediablog.com Writing to young readers: Are Boomers too retro? April 14, 2009 Ralph Keyes brings up an interesting point: Are younger readers not picking up newspapers because we're being too 'retro' in our writing? When journalists refer to people as being too 'Eddie Haskell,' for example, do those folks born well after the 1950s know, first of all, who Eddie Haskell is and, secondly, why someone would compare Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to him? While those of us in the Boomer generation would fully understand the analogy, I can appreciate why the Gen Ys and millennials would scratch their heads and go 'huh?' Just how sensitive is it? A few years back, I was training a young and talented assistant editor to become a department manager. Part of that training included giving her the lead in a major project that involved a number of content editors. For the first week, I continually received phone calls and e-mails about the project from the content editors. After days of forwarding the questions to the assistant, I finally shot out an e-mail to the content editors reminding them that she was in charge of the project and that I should be looked at as 'the Sgt. Schultz of this project." About a half-hour later, the assistant sheepishly asked me "Who is Sgt. Schultz?" I laughed --- I probably shouldn't have --- and explained he was the affable and bumbling Nazi guard of "Hogan's Heroes" whose famous line was "I know nothing, NOTH-THING!!!!" But later it made me aware that such analogies worked for me and my peers, but not for this young assistant and the staff she was managing. Like a manager and his staff, writers need to also understand the factors that have influenced their readers. In many cases, the two may not be in sync. This is the very reason the staff at Beloit College puts together a yearly "mindset" list....what the incoming freshman class may or may not know. It gives the staff ... and those of us who read it ... the perspective of the 18-year-old student as he sees the world. Check out the current version. Eddie Haskell isn't on it. Neither is Sgt. Schultz. As a writer, you must know the audience you're writing to. And you must write to them in terms they'll understand. Being too retro for younger readers may not be the main reason they don't pick up newspapers. But if may be a factor as to why they don't understand what you're writing about. Maybe we Boomers should consider locking Eddie Haskell and Sgt. Schultz in that time vault, and find newer analogies to state our case. It may not be too bad every now and then to say the cost of President Obama's stimulus package is bigger than Kanye West's ego. http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2009/04/retrotalk-griping-just-another-example-of-big-medias-fracturing-audience.html The Feed Eric Deggans Retrotalk griping just another example of big media's fracturing audience April 14, 2009 Citizenjournalism-ClicheReporter460x276 Author Ralph Keyes wrote a provocative column recently, chiding journalists for using too much Retrotalk. What's that, you say? It's the habit smart aleck writers like your truly have of inserting cultural references in stories to add meaning in a playful way. For example, in the Simon Cowell post a few entries earlier, I made a reference to American Idol jumping it's final shark -- a reference to the term for when a TV show introduces a plot twist that makes it plain to all observers that the show is out of creative gas (a reference to classic Happy Days episode in which Fonzie water skied over a shark tank). Keyes, in a column which also neatly references his new book I Love It When You Talk Retro, says today's journalists use too many old "retrotalk" references that young readers don't understand, and which help make newspaper copy sound dated. Citizenjournalism-kid His evidence, in part, is news articles which compare political figures to folks from the 1950s sitcom Leave it to Beaver, including casting Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as a new school Eddie Haskell or saying First Lady Michelle Obama has been "Cleaver-ized." The column drew lots of comments from writers who noted -- quite correctly -- that such references also are a way of passing cultural knowledge along (I mean, does excluding retrotalk mean excluding Shakespeare and Charles Dickens?) But think there's something else going on, too. I have this theory that journalists today are caught between three audiences: old school readers who consume stories the traditional way; middle-aged folks who spend increasing amounts of time online but still occasionally turn to print tradition; and young people who aren't reading print much -- if at all -- and are multitasking animals watching a multitude of screens every day. Gone With.the.Wind So I find myself constantly questioning whether a reference has crossed a tipping point. Will enough people get a subtle M*A*S*H reference? Or a joke about Gone with the Wind? Or playful references to long-gone technology like TV dials and Betamax video? I tend to think some obscure references are like little gems in a story -- if you know their meaning or take the time to look them up, it can add flavor to a story. But are we seek to snare a spreading throng of consumers, we better think harder about the language we use to get our points across. http://blogs.chron.com/memo/archives/2009/04/what_would_andy.html MeMo A cultural blog with Kyrie O'Connor What would Andy Griffith do? April 14, 2009 There's a kerfuffle going on right now over whether so-called "retrotalk" is acceptable or useful in writing, led by one Ralph Keyes, who of course is hawking a book on the topic. Here is Keyes: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is often compared to Eddie Haskell. This is fine if you realize that Haskell was the know-it-all neighbor of Beaver Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver." Those who grew up watching that show might also get the recent Los Angeles Times reference to the "Cleaverization" of Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow's characterization of herself as "a bit of a Wally Cleaver." Members of an even earlier generation may even know what one auto industry analyst meant when she commented about the scrutiny of GM's books: "This is green-eyeshade stuff." (Such eyeshades were once worn by accountants to protect their eyes from glaring overhead light bulbs.) This is retrotalk: employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar to younger readers. Or immigrants. Or anyone at all, for that matter. Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. Here is a counter-argument: From STEVE JOHNSON, pop culture critic, Chicago Tribune: He's got a book to sell, I know, but Ralph Keyes is, to put a blunt point on it, wrong. As wrong as Fonzie was in the episode when he couldn't bring himself to say the word "wrong." (Fonzie was a "greaser," or bad-boy character from the 1950s, in "Happy Days," which was a 1970s situation comedy on television, once a dominant entertainment medium.) An earlier generation's Retrotalk is how I learned such facts as where Kilroy was and why Betty Grable was worth doing an image search on - sorry, make that, finding a picture of. Rather than being offputting, as Keyes contends, Retrotalk is a culture passing itself on. The worthwhile stuff will be looked up, understood, assimilated, perpetuated. It will enrich its readers in ways that articles stripped of all but contemporary or widely understood references (or bogged down with tedious parenthetical explainers) will not. If he wants to amend his gripe to make it one about lazy allusions, however, I'll line up right behind him. I dunno. I used to work with a lot of Yalies, some of whom were always trying to get "rich as Croesus" or "Bourbon monkey apologists" into their stories. I still don't know what the monkey one meant, except having nothing to do with Jim Beam. A mere Eddie Haskell would have been a relief. On the other hand, I have railed for years against old, hackneyed phrases, especially in headlines. such as my all-time least favorite, "The Beat Goes On". You have to be really, really old to think that's an interesting reference. And there's always the danger of being culturally tone-deaf, especially if you're the human equivalent of Mrs. Baird's Bread. I don't mind sending people to Google every once in a while, especially since it's so easy. But I read once that the only movie you can reliably count on everyone knowing is The Wizard of Oz.. Whaddaya think? http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2009/04/retro-talk-or-dumbing-down.html Time Goes By REFLECTIONS: Uncle Sam 15 April 2009 Retro Talk or Dumbing Down? A couple of months ago, I was having dinner with some new friends who are only a decade or so younger than I. While we were discussing the bank bailouts and Wall Street disaster, I was met with blank stares when I said that trying to find an honest man in lower Manhattan these days made one feel like Diogenes. At another dinner a couple of decades ago, a friend who is a well-known cartoonist, told me he'd had a cartoon rejected by the humor editor of a major magazine because, said the editor, these days no one knows who Sisyphus was. I'm hardly a scholar of ancient Greece and I've been known to confuse Roman writers with Greek ones, but shorthand references to Diogenes and Sisyphus are common enough – and have been for about 3,000 years – that they should be recognizable in general conversation or a joke. Now comes Ralph Keyes, writing in Editor & Publisher, to admonish journalists and commentators for what he calls “retrotalk” by which he means “...employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar to younger readers. Or immigrants. Or anyone at all, for that matter. “Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. Even common catch phrases that hearken back to earlier times may be puzzling to younger readers: stuck in a groove, 98-pound weakling, drop a dime, bigger than a breadbox, or a tough row to hoe. (As one giggling third-grader asked when his teacher used this one, 'Isn’t ho a bad word?)” Mr. Keyes isn't talking about pre-Christian era philosophers or even Teddy Roosevelt. In his argument, even contemporary references are too much to ask young readers to understand: “When a Minneapolis Star Tribune article included the line, 'And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?' many readers wondered why the paper would pose such an off-the-wall question. (Lawyers have long considered it a classic query that can’t be answered without self-incrimination.)” Yes, that is the standard question in Catch-22 situations – even well outside legal circles - which makes it hard to understand why Mr. Keyes feels he must explain it to the presumably older writers he is addressing. (Oops - “Catch-22” may be, according to Mr. Keyes, too archaic for some to understand.) Apparently, what Mr. Keyes not understand is that the retrotalk phrases he cites as “verbal fossils” derive their value through repeated use negating the need for several paragraphs of explanation and, more importantly, serve to transmit our culture from one generation to the next. Throughout my lifetime, a good deal of my continuing education has resulted from my elders' use of references I didn't understand and sometimes didn't ask about, not wanting to reveal my ignorance at the moment. But I tracked them down later and learned. I'm pretty sure I wasn't taught about Diogenes in school, but discovered him through such an incident. What Mr. Keyes is asking for then is a deliberate “dumbing down” of American youth. The phrase was made famous in the early 1990s by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in reference to declining education values and the subject was resurrected by Susan Jacoby in her 2008 book, The Age of American Unreason. In a Washington Post article published around the tiime the book was released, she touches on a corollary to that dumbing down: “That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. . .it’s the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism — a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse.” That smugness permeates Mr. Keyes' commentary without any thought to the dumbing down of American discourse. Instead, Mr. Keyes wants us to believe journalists' historical and cultural references are an exclusionary tactic: “Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do?” Or, young readers might, at the very least, visit Wikipedia instead. Should journalists take Mr. Keyes seriously, education will become a more a Sysiphean task than it already is. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200904/1695/ Knight Digital Media Center ONLINE JOURNALISM REVIEW April 15, 2009 By Robert Niles Author Ralph Keyes this week rightly slammed news organizations for using cultural references in their news stories that leave many readers under the age of 50 in the dark. But do not rush to assume that the solution is to strip articles of metaphors and other references, which can help readers identify and understand the news. Instead, smart newsrooms should take a close look at their language, and make a stronger effort to deploy writers who, collectively, can use a broader range of cultural references to appeal to wider audience of readers. Keyes called an over-dependence to decades-old references "retrotalk," including comparisons with 1950s television characters, early 20th Century pop tunes and even antiquated farming techniques. Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. Even common catch phrases that hearken back to earlier times may be puzzling to younger readers: stuck in a groove, 98-pound weakling, drop a dime, bigger than a breadbox, or a tough row to hoe. (As one giggling third-grader asked when his teacher used this one, “Isn’t 'ho' a bad word?”) Keyes' piece roiled the journalism Twitter community, some rushing to spread the word, others to criticize the criticism. Count me among the fans of lively cultural references in news reporting and analysis. But also include me among those who have grown sick of reading repeated, stale references from a generation to which I do not belong. http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/04/retro_talk_dude_its_not_pop_its_retro.php editorsweblog.org A Publication of the World Editors Forum April 15, 2009 Retro talk: Dude*, it's not pop, it's retro Posted by Soraya Kishtwari Writing on website Editor & Publisher, author Ralph Keyes argues that too many journalists risk "alienating" foreign and younger readers in what he dubs the overuse of "retrotalk," which he defines as "employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar" to certain audience groups. Keyes refers to various US-specific examples, although I particularly liked the one about New York Times columnist, Frank Rich, who once referred to George W. Bush as having "a slight, almost Chauncey Gardiner quality" alluding to Peter Sellers' dim-witted character in the 1979 movie "Being There." However, the idea that cultural references may be lost on younger generations is unfair, for Keyes is implying that readers (whatever their ages or origins) are unwilling to do the necessary groundwork to figure things out for themselves. As Steve Johnson, pop culture critic for the Chicago Tribune, points out: "Retrotalk is a culture passing itself on." And we're inclined to agree. After all, if an article is engaging enough, readers will look up any references they're unsure of. As Johnson says: "The worthwhile stuff will be looked up, understood, assmilated, perpetuated." Hell yeah. Besides, what with the world wide web of knowledge available at the click of a mouse, today's youngsters have it easier than their ancestors to piece together cultural conundrums proffered by teasing journalists. Some will even delight at having to track down these cultural references, explains Jonathan Harwell Jr. commenting on the article, just as he's right to say we should "think of retro references not as road blocks but as opportunities for learning." The timing of Keyes article, however, should not be lost on people, given March saw the publication of his latest book called - of all things - "I love it when you talk retro." I would therefore be inclined to take what Keyes says with a pinch of salt, after all, if spurring debate and publicity is what he was after, he's achieved that much, at least. http://thewickedstage.blogspot.com/2009/04/retro-edition.html The Wicked Stage Rob Weinert-Kendt Brooklyn, New York, United States April 15, 2009 Rob Weinert-Kendt is an arts journalist based in New York. He has written features and criticism for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Newsday, The Guardian, and The San Francisco Chronicle, among others. He was the founding editor of Back Stage West. He currently writes features for the Theatre Development Fund website and reviews theatre for Time Out NY and The Village Voice. Retro Edition Ralph Keyes has an amusing piece in Editor & Publisher about so-called "retro" references in journalism and how they may alienate the young and the not-tuned-in: Retrotalk is ubiquitous among journalists of a certain age. By using it they set themselves apart from those born in the last three or four decades. On "Meet the Press," New York Times columnist David Brooks said about Hillary Clinton, “In the first debate she’s Emily Post, now she’s Howard Beale,” referring to the late etiquette maven and the angry protagonist of the 1976 movie "Network." In a recent column Brooks wrote, “And not to get Rod McKuen on you or anything …” Say what? Inquiring younger minds want to know. As someone who discovered rich stores of culture, pop and otherwise, via references by my elders that were initially obscure to me (and as a songwriter who once used Geraldo's opening Al Capone's vault and finding it empty as a metaphor in a lyric), I heartily embrace and encourage the practice. In fact, poised as I am between the Brooks boomers and a younger crop of new journos, I sometimes find myself not quite grokking references in both directions, but that's all part of keeping up with our ever-evolving language and cultural conversation--or what David Foster Wallace called, slightly holding his nose at the clinical sound of the phrase, our "discourse community." I say, the broader and stranger, the better. http://brooksfile.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/retrotalk-the-opposite-of-futurespeak/ The Brooks File A Boy of Summer, A Man for All Seasons Retrotalk. The Opposite Of Futurespeak? April 15, 2009 by Gerry Someone named Ralph Keyes says I should stop engaging in retrotalk. (The most recent example would be the Dr. Hook reference in the previous post.) Journalists who lace their copy with retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. (Editor & Publisher, 4/13) I have no idea who Ralph Keyes is, but he appears to be a prolific writer who has made “retrotalk” his own little fiefdom. How nice for him. Perfect for retrotalk Look Ralph, here’s the deal. I write what I know. My head is filled with a lot of stuff from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Some of it is quite useful for perspective (I’m good to go from Ike on), and a lot of it is fun junk (I remember who recorded “Billy, Don’t Be A Hero,” which I now need to get out of my head). I don’t worry, even a little bit, about alienating those who are too young to get the allusions. Because if they’re reading what I write, I expect them to be curious enough to find the information behind the allusions. It’s not as if they have to get on their bicycles and pedal to the library to use the encyclopedia. (Is that retrotalk?) They’re reading this (and damn near everything else they read) on their computers. All they have to do is click, click and there are the answers. I don’t think that’s too much of an impostition. And if it is, they can go read…Ralph Keyes. MitchellShannon.com - http://mitchellshannon.wordpress.com/ MitchellShannon.com Yo, newspapers: Don’t disrespect us by talking about Baby Boomer stuff April 15, 2009 I was doing a small bit of public speaking a couple of weeks ago, which is not my usual thing, and, needing to quicken the pace, I found myself blurting out a reference to “talking like the K-Tel Guy,” which earned some blank stares. The K-Tel Guy, as everyone must know, was Phil Kives, the Winnipeg entrepreneur who gained enduring fame by speed-yapping his way through TV pitches for wacky products. Okay, the commercials haven’t aired for, let’s see, must be about three decades, if you’re counting, but Hair Wiz and Kitchen Magician — “It slices; it dices!” — must live on in our collective memory, right? The expressionless faces in my audience answered the question. I made a note to myself, to examine my aging stockpile of cultural references, which are likely to be increasingly obscure to the current demographic. Confirming my decision this morning is Ralph Keyes, who writes for the newspaper industry’s trade publication, Editor & Publisher. Mr. Keyes cautions journalists against their predilection for what he calls ‘retrotalk‘: phrases and references that are unlikely to be understood by those not of the Baby Boom generation. Many of the examples Mr. Keyes provides refer to TV programs of the 1960s, such as “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Andy Griffith Show.” He cites numerous instances where discussions of current public affairs lead serious commentators to invoke mentions of Eddie Haskell or Mayberry. He also explains what is meant by dropping those two names (Haskell, a synonym for insincerity; Mayberry, a locus of rubes), which probably shouldn’t be necessary when dealing with a halfway-informed reader of any age or origin. The problem, it strikes me, may not be as Mr. Keyes suggests, that this habit of mentioning antique texts poses too much of a challenge or an irritation to some nitwits. I was born well after the Golden Age of Radio, but understand exactly what is meant by Fibber McGee’s closet, and find Mel Blanc’s 60-year-old transcribed invocations of Anaheim, Azusa and Cucamonga to be unfailingly side-splitting. The erudite newspapermen of the past, say, Mencken or Liebling, were no less a delight because you couldn’t directly relate to their evocation of names and events of their childhoods. If Mr. Keyes is proposing that yuppie reporters and commentators are lazy and rely overly on the convenience of using TV imagery to make their points, I won’t argue. If his point is that newspapers have thinned the ranks of the kind of experienced desk staff who once might have noticed and corrected the overuse of cheap metaphors (such as “thinned the ranks”), he’s smack on. You're looking lovely this morning, Mrs. Cleaver If, however, he’s proposing that today’s young ‘uns aren’t reading newspapers because they don’t know who Eddie Haskell is, I’d respond, in the style of Old-Time Radio, “Puh-leeze, Mr. Keyes.” Newspaper readership is sinking for a bunch of reasons, some relating to a generational change, but that trend won’t be reversed by requiring reporters to quit talking about Bob Dylan and begin to cite the wisdom of P. Diddy and cohort. I’d say the problem comes down to contemporary newspapers containing little but crap, and readers who have moved on to rituals other than reading newspapers. Marshall McLuhan — and I’m sorry about referring to another Ancien Régime figure — said newspapers would endure because they’re like a warm bath. What he meant by that, I think, was that print is meant to be tactile, reassuring and comforting, something into which you’d always wish to immerse yourself. He was wrong. Stayed in a post-modern Hotel Indigo, or one of those funky new Hilton properties? No bathtubs; just showers. And to drive the message home, yesterday the Marriott chain, the lodging industry leader, announced they plan to stop the practice of plopping newspapers in front of the doorway of every guestroom. Somehow I don’t think they’ll revisit their decision if Rupert Murdoch promises to start wearing hip-hop gear and drinking smoothies. Newspapers are your grandfather’s Oldsmobile, or perhaps Hupmobile. Mr. Keyes is certain not to like this, but I’ll offer one concluding bit of retrotalk in response to the plaintive question asked hourly by newspaper publishers of ex-readers, “What do you want us to do?” At the risk of alienating some, let’s quote Goldfinger, a character in a 1960s movie, the name of which you probably won`t remember: “I want you to die, Mr. Bond!” http://www.fitzandjen.com/2009/04/ill-gladly-pay-you-tuesday-for-a-forbearance-today.html Fitz & Jen Give You the Business April 15, 2009 I’ll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Forbearance Today Wimpy popeye Fitz: Yeah, yeah, Ralph Keyes, we should avoid “retrotalk.” So a footnote: The headline refers to an old cartoon character Wimpy in the old newspaper/newsreel/1960s after-school with Captain Jack McCarthy on WPIX in New York City “Popeye” cartoon. Any time you saw Wimpy he was trying to get a hamburger on credit, saying, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.’ I was reminded of Wimpy’s just-another-week plea by the announcement Wednesday that Canwest Media Inc., the big Canadian publisher of the National Post and other dailies, had received another week to come up with an overdue US$30.4 payment on its notes. An ad hoc committee representing holders of about 70% of those outstanding 8% senior subordinated notes had previously extended its payment demand to yesterday. Now, Canwest has until next ... Tuesday. Retro, but clever, eh? But all seriousness aside, as Steve Allen used to say, it’s a big reprieve for Canwest. With the payment due back on March 15, noteholders have the right to demand about US$761 immediately. And with its parent Canwest Global Communications Corp. swamped by debt of US$3.1 billion, well, they don’t have the dough. To stave off a possible bankruptcy, Canwest has been in discussions with both noteholders and senior lenders to figure out a recapitalization transaction. As it happens, April 21 is when a waiver from the banks expires, too. What’s that, kid? Who was Steve Allen? Like the Jay Leno of his time, if “Jay Walking” were actually funny. http://jcurtin.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/in-the-land-of-old-farts-theres-nothing-new-under-the-sun/ I Have Heard the Mermaids Singing Life in a Post-Rational World In the land of old farts, there’s nothing new under the sun. April 15, 2009 Regular Reader Carl P. sends along this thought-provoking Editor & Publisher editorial about what writer Ralph Keyes refers to as Retrotalk and how journalists who use same tend to lose contact with a major portion of their audiences. You know, the folks who aren’t as old as dirt. Or as I am. This is something of which I am often guilty. In my defense, I do try to link to Wiki or some other source which explains the reference for all you young whippersnappers. But I think it is indicative of a much greater issue that the aging of the commentariat. I suggest that our culture died a sad and lonely death at some point late in the last century and we are left only with references to what came before to put things into some sort of perspective. As we say around here…. Remember the Maine. # Pat O'Neill Says: My boys are 23 and 20, and I have no doubt that they would recognize at least SOME of the references used as examples. Certainly, they would know Mayberry, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”, Imelda Marcos, and Rod Serling. The younger one, who is a theater major, might even get the Eve Harrington call-out. I chalk this up to a lack of shared cultural knowledge among young and old. Definitely there are references my kids make that go over my head. OTOH, there are some things that ought to be common cultural references across the generations. During March Madness, my boss walked through the breakroom and made a subtle crack about the guys who were going over their brackets. I opened up with “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on…” and only the guy of about 50 got it. # Tim Fitzpatrick Says: Same as it ever was. I can remember times when I was a young buck and there would be reference to Audie Murphy, or rosebud, and not have a clue what was being talked about. As time went on, I became more edumacated, and I knowed better what such things meant. http://my.billingsgazette.com/post/CraigLancaster/blog/talk_retro_to_me.html My Billings Gazette Watch Yer Language Talk retro to me Posted by: Craig Lancaster April 15, 2009 This article, by author Ralph Keyes, has been bandied about in journalism circles for the past few days. Keyes' point, in a nutshell: Our insistence on dated pop-culture references is driving away young readers. Keyes writes: Retrotalk is ubiquitous among journalists of a certain age. By using it they set themselves apart from those born in the last three or four decades. On "Meet the Press," New York Times columnist David Brooks said about Hillary Clinton, “In the first debate she’s Emily Post, now she’s Howard Beale,” referring to the late etiquette maven and the angry protagonist of the 1976 movie "Network." In a recent column Brooks wrote, “And not to get Rod McKuen on you or anything …” Say what? Inquiring younger minds want to know. Now, I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativism (a phrase coined used by Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1970, which predates my memory), but Keyes is flat wrong unless he includes two important adjectives to his proposed reining-in: "lazy" and "inappropriate." If that were the crux of Keyes' fight, I would stand with him. Few things come across as weakly as a poorly employed pop-culture reference. Otherwise, I suspect that he isn't being intellectually honest about how these references foment and perpetuate. Kids who never saw "Happy Days" during its heyday nonetheless use a phrase inspired by the show, "jump the shark" -- or, at least, they did until the phrase itself jumped the shark. A friend of mine, age 39, signs off on Facebook every night with "Goodnight, Gracie." The program that made it famous, "The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show," went off the air 12 years before he was born. These gems live on because they're passed down, from generation to generation, whether it's from parent to child or through the wonder of syndicated television. You didn't have to be alive during the original run of "Gilligan's Island" or "Leave it to Beaver" to get the references -- those shows are playing, somewhere, every day. In fact, I daresay that the greater risk lies in making reference to current pop culture, when we don't have the benefit of the years to know whether something is enduring or just a passing fad. Wisteria Lane is now. Mayberry, as noted by one commenter, is eternal. http://mobile.rogerebert.com/rogerebert/db_9583/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=AB2D23F7D1397453ED419EF3A7149A36?contentguid=NTRO5aVP&storycount=2882&detailindex=5&full=true#display Movie Answer Man 04/15/09 By Roger Ebert Q. Bill Paxton has a dream project: To direct Jimmy Fallon in "the ultimate Buster Keaton biopic." Cameron Crowe cast Fallon in "Almost Famous," and that worked out pretty well. Fallon's partial resemblance to Buster is noteworthy, so this suggests an intriguing gambit similar to casting Robert Downey Jr. in "Chaplin." Paxton directed "Frailty," to which you gave a four-star rating. So what do you think? Should a risk-taking studio make Paxton's dream come true? Jeff Shannon, Seattle A. With Paxton and Fallon involved, assuming it's a good script, I don't see the risk on a studio's part. The risk on their part is that some executives have probably never heard of Buster Keaton, the greatest actor-director in the history of the cinema, and that includes Orson Welles, who they also haven't heard of. I read an article by Ralph Keyes saying journalists should cut back on their "retro talk" because younger readers are not familiar with their references, like Beaver Cleaver. If writers had never mentioned names I'd never heard of, what would I have ever learned? So here, in defiance, are two names in retro talk: Buster Keaton. Orson Welles. Believe me, I could go on. http://blogs.mcall.com/bill_white/2009/04/old-school.html Blogging with Bill White Old School April 20, 2009 When I wrote a couple of weeks ago about Northampton County Executive candidate Ann McHale pretending she didn’t know the county’s proposed treatment center in Bethlehem Township also would include work release, my first thought was Captain Renault from “Casablanca.” I had used the exchange years ago in another column. Renault, justifying his decision to shut down Rick’s Cafe — because customers had offended the German army officers who were calling the shots in Casablanca — said he was shocked, shocked that there was gambling in this establishment. Just then a croupier walked up to him and said, “Your winnings, sir,” and handed him money he had won gambling that night. It was perfect for McHale, really. There were just two problems. One was that it has become something of a cliche. Since I slipped it in a column, I’ve seen it used many times by other writers to make the same point. More significantly, it’s a pop culture reference from a movie that’s 67 years old. This kind of thing is a considerable occupational hazard for baby-boomer journalists. Our pop culture reference points and catch phrases are increasingly out of date for younger readers, and I’m not just talking about people in their 20s. One of the things I’ve learned in my semi-weekly Movie Quotes quizzes is that there are only a handful of regular readers who recognize quotes from movies from the ‘50s, ‘40s and ‘30s. I’ve always loved “It Happened One Night,” for example, a classic screwball comedy that won the Academy Award in 1934. I’ve seen it so many times, many from that movie are very familiar to me. But when I included a quote in one of my quizzes several weeks ago, it sat out there like a dead shark — “Annie Hall” reference — for days until another fan of old movies finally stopped by the blog and answered it. It doesn’t have to go back to the ‘30s, though. Think about Howard Beale and “Network.” How many readers under 40 ever heard him say, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore?” The movie came out in 1976. What about “Dirty Harry”? 1971. Rocky? “1976.” I know it's on TV all the time, but a 40-year-old was 7 years old when that came out. My wife and I have talked about this over the years. She works in The Morning Call’s features department, where a knowledge of current pop culture is crucial. It’s one reason we watch a lot of TV and troll the Web. Having our 23-year-old daughter living with us helps, too. She won’t even watch a black and white movie, but she knows every cheesy reality show and teen drama series. It rubs off. My wife’s ex-boss in features used to stress the importance of avoiding outdated pop culture references and spotting trends. When Ralph Keyes of Editor & Publisher online picked up on the same subject the other day, my wife sent me the link. He has more good examples than you can shake a stick at … an expression that dates back to 1818, by the way. All this has gotten me thinking, which usually a good thing. I heard somebody use, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat” the other day as a way of referring to a problem more serious than he had first understood. I thought: Is that “Jaws” reference out of date? I pretty much have the script memorized. What about “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse?” Heck, I think I worked “There ain’t no sanity clause” into a column one time, and that’s from a 74-year-old Marx Brothers movie. How concerned should we be? I’m increasingly inclined to think the 20-somethings and even 30-somethings — another retro pop culture reference, by the way — may be a sufficiently lost cause that if newspapers make them their priority, they’ll fail for sure. But that doesn’t mean we should force them out by speaking an outdated metaphorical language. Relevance ought to be important to anyone engaged in journalism, and it’s tough to seem relevant when you’re writing about June Cleaver or Eddie Haskell, both of which I’ve done. I won’t swear off old movie and TV references altogether. Being a cornball is part of who I am. But I’m trying to at least recognize what’s going on and balance the old and the new. More Tim Gunn, less Peter Gunn. Less Linus, more Ben Linus. More “Gossip Girl,” less “Goodbye Girl.” Twenty-somethings welcome. Any thoughts? Current Comments NOOOOO! Don't stop with the timeless references. Just because the 20ish-es don't know what you mean when you say "Of all the bars in all the world, she's got to come into mine", that doesn't make it right! I'm 49 and by all rights, I shouldn't know that quote. My 22 year old son is just now discovering some of the old classics - although he's forced to because of a class he's taking in college, but I think he would eventually, anyway. This is why getting older is bearable - your body isn't as responsive but at least your more knowledgable. Because of my age I can quote Casablanca AND the newer ones.... "Because one time at Band Camp...." Posted By: lynn I was watching the three Stooges while working out at the gym on Sunday. People at work don't get it when I see someone doing something stupid and say, "Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!" Lately I've been saying that a lot while reading blogs! LOL! Posted By: Chris Casey | Apr 20, 2009 4:34:08 PM Once the new Three Stooges movie comes out -- Jim Carrey is gaining weight to play Curly -- those references will be relevant again. Posted By: bill white | Apr 20, 2009 4:42:06 PM Jim carrey as Curly? really? That's the first I heard of it. Who is playing Moe and Larry? Posted By: Chris Casey One advantage that newer references offer is that they haven't been trampled into cliche. I don't care how old something is, but I care whether I've read it a thousand times. That thing with Captain Renault being "shocked, shocked" has had all the creative juice wrung out of it ... it's the kind of device people use when they have no creativity or energy. Here's a suggested rule of thumb for journalists, taking off on Kerouac: "First thought, worst thought." When a situation immediately makes you think of Captain Renault, or Lucy eating the chocolates on the conveyor belt, or Les Nessman swearing that he thought turkeys could fly, maybe that's a pretty good signal *not* to use that image. Because anything that comes to you that automatically is probably threadbare. Posted By: Where http://jenniferlarsonwrites.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/retro-references/ Jennifer Larson, Writer at Large Retro References April 23, 2009 Editor & Publisher’s website ran a really interesting column by Ralph Keyes a few days back: “Eddie Haskell and Howard Beale: Go Home! Journos are Alienating Readers With ‘Retro’ References.’” In the column, Keyes explains that many journalists are using references to characters, movies and personalities that many Gen Xers wouldn’t recognize, let alone the Millennial Generation kids. My first reaction was “Oh no. Have I been doing that? Have I been dropping cryptic references to things that my readers have never heard of? Do I sound hopelessly uncool and out of date, even though I still have a few glorious months left in the coveted 18-34 age demographic?” I wanted to scramble through my old clip file and pull out some of my old stories to see what silly things I’ve written. But then I thought about it for a few more minutes. Many of the reporters and writers that Keyes cites–i.e. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, and Leonard Pitts of The Miami Herald–are writing for print publications. Isn’t that one of the big woes of the mainstream media, that the readership of traditional publications like newspapers is aging? Wouldn’t it make sense, in that case, to assume that yeah, most of your readers actually will understand the so-called “retro references”? I mean, it’s not like hordes of high school students and college students are reading newspapers these days (sadly). They’re reading everything online–when they read things–and it’s not like they’re turning to the traditional publications for their news. They’re twittering and MySpacing and Facebooking and texting. I was born in (gulp) 1974, which puts me smack in the middle of Generation X. I do get some of the references. I know who Eddie Haskell is. I watched countless reruns of “Leave it to Beaver” on TBS when my family finally got cable when I was a little girl. But yes, I’ll admit that some of the references that Keyes alludes to are even over my head. Does it bother me? Not particularly. As Keyes mentions, it’s easy enough for me to Google the answer…or use my supah reading skilz to deduce what the writer means by using context clues (I used to ace standardized tests). And frankly, consider the likely alternative to using dated references. Ack! Is there anything worse than an older person laboring to use a cool new expression that “all the kids are using”? It’s so embarrassing that it makes me feel like a sixteen-year-old whose mother just awkwardly but enthusiastically used some “hip” slang in front of my drill team buddies. I don’t want to read staid columnists suddenly trying to sound cool. It’d be like one of the graying Hall of Famer baseball players trying to wear a flat-brimmed ball cap like an early-twenties shortstop just up from the minors. Just don’t do it. But I understand the point that using dated references may alienate younger readers. And that’s bad, especially at a time when most media outlets need all the readers they can get to justify their existence to the people who pay the bills. And a little tiny, disaffected Gen Xer-part of me is maybe a little bit delighted to see the mighty Baby Boomers get taken down a notch or two for assuming that everyone understands all their cultural references and that the references are all still current and relevant. So what’s the solution? For writers, I’d say, “Think before you write. And put some effort into talking to younger people and finding some new, relevant references that you can use in the future.” For readers, I’d say, “Don’t give up on the writers just for alluding to something you don’t understand. Maybe you’ll learn something.” # margiewrites Seriously! I’ve been annoyed for quite some time how everything is so baby boomer-ified, and you’re supposed to catch onto all their little inside jokes. It reminds me of when I was growing up as a kid and thought the 70s references my mom and aunts made were so lame. I think writers definitely have to start taking into consideration that they’re not only writing to their own age group, or they will make themselves appear sooo not with it. Only current pop culture references, please! # jenniferlarsonwrites Thank you for backing me up here! I do think it’s okay to use a pop culture reference that crosses generations, though. I mean, I don’t mean to deny the huge cultural impact that certain people have made, despite the fact that they may have made those contributions many years ago. (See: the Beatles, Andy Warhol, etc.) But I think too many people rely on dated references too often. And even if some of us still understand them, yawn! Boomington (IN) Times-Herald April 26, 2009 Author strikes nerve with ‘Retro Talk’ Mike Leonard Author Ralph Keyes has written one of the most entertaining reference works of all time with his newly published book, “I Love It When You Talk Retro: Hoochie Coochie, Double Whammy, Drop a Dime, and the Forgotten Origins of American Speech.” Just about every idiomatic expression or popular culture reference you can think of is researched and listed in the book, ranging from the ones listed in the book title to terms such as “talk turkey,” “top banana,” “limelight,” “not worth a tinker’s damn” and “nudge, nudge, wink, wink.” Most of us have heard the term, “red herring,” used to describe a diversionary tactic, for example. Keyes tracks the saying back to Elizabethan England, “where smoked herring, a pungent comestible of bright red color like that of smoked salmon today, was dragged along the ground by fugitives to throw pursuing dogs off the scent.” “I didn’t know that one either,” the Yellow Springs, Ohio, resident said in a phone interview last week. “Another one of my favorites is scuttlebutt. I mean, we’ve all heard the term, ‘Hey, what’s the scuttlebutt on that?’ As it turns out, the butt was the wooden cask that held water on the old sailing ships, and the scuttle was the dipping hole. So the two terms came together to describe the place where the sailors would go to get a drink of water and share gossip. “It’s very much a relative of the term, ‘water cooler talk,’ which, I’m certain, is a retro term in the making,” he said. Keyes is a lover of language, and his book is neither stodgy nor cumbersome. It can be read in a linear fashion, from beginning to end, or browsed like a magazine. It’s all good. What has been interesting is the furor — the tempest in a teapot — that ensued after the newspaper trade magazine, Editor & Publisher, printed an article written by Keyes, pointing out the positive and negative aspects of communicating with cultural references that may be lost on a significant segment of readers. “I was kind of stunned. I was surprised by the vehemence of some of the reactions. I got a kick out of it, but I was surprised,” he said. Many of the writers who read the piece accused Keyes of trying to bleed all of the color out of writing. Others took an opposing view — that Keyes had rightly reminded writers to be mindful of their audience and that one person’s colorful cultural expression might be another’s “what the heck?” moment, or, worse, no better than a cliche. “I think the problem is, in a way, it’s like when you’re reading somebody, and they throw in a bunch of French or Latin phrases and they’re not helping you understand something better. They’re trying to show off their command of French and Latin,” Keyes said. “I love Maureen Dowd (of the New York Times), but I have to say, she’s the queen of retro talk. I don’t think she can write a column without making at least a couple of references that will make younger readers scratch their heads,” he said. “And if Dowd’s the queen, then Chris Matthews of MSNBC has to be the king. He once made a reference to a ‘Perry Como calmness’ and, sure, I got it and it was a good image. But he’s 63 and I’m 64. Are listeners in their 20s going to have any idea what he’s talking about?” To be clear, Keyes loves the rich heritage of colorful expressions and found it fascinating, if not incredibly laborious, to track down their original meanings. “When I first started writing books on language 20 years ago, it was all about maximizing the available data,” he said. “Now, with all of the Internet resources, the challenge is flip-flopped. Now the challenge is to narrow and minimize the accessible resources, and if you don’t, you’ll drown. “I do want to say that what I wrote in E&P was interpreted by some as saying you should never use these references, or you should dumb-down your copy, and that’s not at all what I was trying to say,” he explained. “I think it is important to be mindful when you make these references and not assume you’re only speaking to people of your generation, and to avoid using retro terms as code words among the cognoscenti. “I am not saying we should never use them. They add color and spice to your writing — if you use them judiciously.” Boston Globe May 3, 2009 Unusual suspects: When phrases give up the ghost Jan Freeman A FEW YEARS ago, in a journalism class a friend of mine was teaching, one of the older students said he didn't get another writer's passing reference to a current movie. In the ensuing discussion, my friend said they might want to stick to allusions that were widely familiar - "You know, like 'Round up the usual suspects.' " Blank faces stared back at her. Not a mile from the Casablanca restaurant in Harvard Square, where a huge mural depicts characters from the movie, sat a roomful of students who had never heard that famous line of dialogue from "Casablanca." So we won't always have Paris, after all. But is the limited shelf life of pop allusions a problem for journalism? Ralph Keyes, whose new book is "I Love It When You Talk Retro," suggests that it is. "Journalists who lace their copy with such retro terms or names risk alienating those who are too young to get the allusions," wrote Keyes in Editor & Publisher last month. "Even common catch phrases that hearken back to earlier times may be puzzling to younger readers: stuck in a groove, 98-pound weakling, drop a dime, bigger than a breadbox." The bloggers' response was swift and anything but unanimous. Jennifer Larson (age 34), at her own website, said, essentially, What younger readers? "Wouldn't it make sense to assume that yeah, most of your readers actually will understand the so-called 'retro references?' I mean, it's not like hordes of high school students and college students are reading newspapers these days." Besides, she said, "consider the likely alternative to using dated references. Ack! Is there anything worse than an older person laboring to use a cool new expression?" Craig Lancaster of the Billings (Mont.) Gazette, who blogs at Watch Yer Language, took a longer view. "A friend of mine, age 39, signs off on Facebook every night with 'Goodnight, Gracie,' " he writes. "The program that made it famous, 'The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show,' went off the air 12 years before he was born. These gems live on because they're passed down, from generation to generation . . . You didn't have to be alive during the original run of 'Gilligan's Island' or 'Leave it to Beaver' to get the references - those shows are playing, somewhere, every day." Several commenters pointed out that old and young alike can easily find out the background of any unfamiliar reference. (And let me note that if you really have no idea how large a breadbox might be, photos and measurements abound at Web shopping sites.) Are dated catch phrases really a communication problem? They may come off as the in-group language of a graying generation, as Keyes notes, but they're really no different from other items in our vocabulary. We all make adjustments when necessary - thongs are no longer sandals, twittering isn't just for the birds - but as long as our audience knows what we mean by dime store, there's no reason to change. In any case, we can't just run a search-and-replace on our pasts, updating those "Casablanca" catch phrases with Bart Simpson's bon mots. And would it really be a better world if we'd never heard the word icebox? These allusions and dated terms, like all our words, live or die according to our collective whim. If enough people say "Round up the usual suspects" enough times, it will survive, in some form, in the next generation's lexicon. If not, not: Twenty-three skidoo, see you later, alligator. But how far should anyone go in adjusting his or her vocabulary to the audience - or "dumbing down," as some bloggers call it? After all, you'd have to aim very low to ensure you used only words and references known to every single reader. As more than one commenter pointed out, we learn new words by hearing them; same with new allusions. Happily, it turns out that you don't have to answer these questions to enjoy "Talk Retro." Keyes's book is not really an argument about journalism; it's a handy collection of these (allegedly) retro words and phrases, whose sources you may not know even if you know the terms. Keyes says he himself was only recently enlightened about the implications of "there must be a pony in there." Browsing, I've learned whose bloody shirt is waved (it was worn by a clergyman flogged for preaching to slaves, and waved by an abolitionist), that the chip on someone's shoulder was often cow dung, and that "slice and dice" dates from the late-night Veg-o-Matic commercials. Your mileage may vary, as the EPA has taught us to say, but readers on both sides of the generation gap will find something here they didn't know (or had long forgotten). If what we have here really is a failure to communicate, "Talk Retro" could be part of the remedy. Columbia Journalism Review The Kicker — May 11, 2009 NYT Talks Like Montgomery Burns By Liz Cox Barrett The New York Times “is a citadel of retrotalk,” according to the author of I Love It When You Talk Retro: Hoochie Coochie, Double Whammy, Drop a Dime and the Forgotten Origins of American Speech, Ralph Keyes. And Maureen Dowd is the “Queen of Retrotalk.” So? Well, warns Keyes: Falling back on retro-references…can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do? “Younger readers” today…Slightest perceived slight gets their bloomers (slacks? dungarees?) in a bunch. http://www.hypercrit.net/2009/05/20/is-retrotalk-making-journalism-too-murky-for-young-people/ Hypercrit May 20, 2009 Michael Becker writes about journalism, new media and digital culture in general. Is retrotalk making journalism too murky for young people? by Michael Becker An article by Ralph Keyes in Editor & Publisher has stirred up some debate lately about the value of the dated cultural references that often make their way into journalistic copy. Keyes calls these dated references “retrotalk: employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar to younger readers. Or immigrants. Or anyone at all, for that matter.” He’s talking about phrases such as 98-pound weakling, stuck in a groove, drop a dime, bigger than a breadbox and a tough row to hoe, Emily Post, Jimmy the Greek, Howard Beale, Joe Friday, Nosey Parker, Ma Barker, Eve Harrington and Rod Serling, Mayberry, Geraldo Rivera opening Capone’s vault, the Cleaver family and others. Such phrases, which may be familiar to people born before 1960, don’t always come across to modern readers, especially young readers, Keyes writes. Falling back on retro-references this way can give press coverage the flavor of a private conversation among those born before 1960. The implicit message to younger readers seems to be: Hey, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, maybe you should butt out. Haven’t you got some twittering to do? Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post responded to Keyes’ rhetorical plea for journalists to provide a glossary of their retrotalk with a blatantly sarcastic column full of superscripts leading to footnotes explaining the meaning of allusions like “swell” and “Haminahamina.” As you can see, I think this is a swell10 idea and doesn’t really hurt a columnist’s narrative one bit. I see nothing wrong with taking a little extra time, and a few extra words, to explain things. I don’t for one minute buy the argument that all this is unnecessary and patronizing, that it assumes young people are so self-centered and incurious that they remain culturally ignorant about things they didn’t personally experience, things they think only their mother should know, to paraphrase the Beatles, a 1960s-era rock group. I don’t think for a moment that Keyes meant his glossary idea literally, but I can forgive Weingarten. He was, after all, as mad as a wet hen at having his sensibilities and (possibly) his writing style questioned. Media critic Steve Johnson commented on Keyes’ essay in a slightly less sarcastic posting to the forums at PoynterOnline. (Johnson also points out that Keyes has a book to sell, and might be interested in making shocking — and perhaps wrong-headed — statements right now to garner a little publicity.) Rather than being offputting, as Keyes contends, Retrotalk is a culture passing itself on. The worthwhile stuff will be looked up, understood, assimilated, perpetuated. It will enrich its readers in ways that articles stripped of all but contemporary or widely understood references (or bogged down with tedious parenthetical explainers) will not. If he wants to amend his gripe to make it one about lazy allusions, however, I’ll line up right behind him. I side with Johnson on this one. I cherish the language gems that have found their way into my speech, just as much as I cherish the fact that I laugh at jokes that my friends don’t get because those jokes are based on comedy routines that predate television. Those language remnants are important; they teach us about our past and make us curious to learn more. They enrich our everyday speech. Besides, where to we draw the line on retrotalk? Is “master of my domain” retrotalk because the show that coined the phrase aired in the 1990s? What about “Oh boy!” “D’oh!” “Who ya gonna call?” and “Suit up!”? When will they be considered retrotalk? Are they already? I want to think that Keyes is doing more than trying to sell books. I think he’s concerned that journalism will not do as good a job as it can for young people if those young people are chased off (or bored to tears) by outdated pop culture references. But news writing is still writing, and the allusion, almost as old as writing itself, is a powerful and economical way to inject color and history into writing. Anyway, if there’s news that young people need to see, there are plenty of bland, boring sources out there that will be more or less scrubbed of retrotalk. Published: May 20, 2009 http://www.more.com/2051/4972-do-these-words-make-me More.com Celebrating women 40+ Do These Words Make Me Look Old? June 2009 by Susan Toepfer Guest Writer If I tell you that my closet would put Imelda Marcos to shame, would you know what I was saying? What if I were having a June Cleaver flashback? Or were worried about an Eve Harrington in the office down the hall? Probably not, if you are 20, 30, even 40; good chance, if you’re 50 or above. That’s the point Ralph Keyes made in a recent Editor & Publisher column warning writers to avoid what he calls “retrotalk: employing terminology rooted in our past that may not be familiar to younger readers. Or immigrants. Or anyone at all, for that matter.” Ouch! His words made me feel as dated as Alice Kramden. As if Rod Serling might step up any minute. As if somebody dropped a dime on me. As if I was The Man Who Fell to Earth. (A helpful glossary is at the end of this post.) But wait a minute—do I really want to fill my speech with references to Gossip Girl and Lil Wayne? Besides, I never read a Horatio Alger story, carried coals to Newcastle, went to hell in a hand basket—all phrases bandied about by my parents’ and grandparents’ generations--and somehow I managed to figure out what they meant. Of course, there was a time, and it wasn’t that long ago, when the culture was far more united—everybody watched the same TV shows, listened to the same top songs, read the same books, or at least heard them discussed enough to understand the references. Before cable, with its limitless options, we were almost force-fed earlier cultures: A great deal of TV programming once involved broadcasting old black and white movies, so in a sense I grew up with a previous generation, as well as my own. How else would I have discovered Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Women or All About Eve? The last, incidentally, provided the title for my blog, The Bumpy Ride—Bette Davis’ snarling caution, “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night,” more often misquoted as “bumpy ride.” My 35-year-old editor at True/Slant had no idea what I was talking about—but I think he got the idea (bumpy is a big clue). Still, I know Keyes’s point is valid: A couple of years ago, rehearsing a speech for an awards ceremony, I made a reference to Lady Macbeth’s hand washing. The 20- and 30-something staffers in the auditorium had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained, they suggested substituting the cable TV detective Monk. Good advice, and I took it. But I can’t help but wonder… shouldn’t any educated person be familiar with Macbeth? At least the Cliffs Notes version? Are we ditching Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet as well? Whew! At least Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes got us off the hook with that doomed couple … for a decade or two. Glossary of Forgotten References Imelda Marcos: Wife of the former dictator of the Philippines (deposed in 1986), renowned for her 2700 pairs of shoes June Cleaver: Ideal, kitchen-bound wife/mother on the old sitcom Leave It to Beaver (debuted 1957) Eve Harrington: Scheming assistant to stage star Margot Channing in the 1950 Bette Davis film, All About Eve Alice Kramden: Sardonic, long-suffering wife of Jackie Gleason’s New York City bus driver, Ralph Kramden, in the 1950s series The Honeymooners Rod Serling: Creator and host of the 1960s supernatural series, The Twilight Zone, in which various unsuspecting humans get caught in otherwordly (and usually terrifying) situations. Drop a Dime: To turn in a criminal to the police by “dropping a dime” in a pay phone (a public means of communicating on the street, predating cell phones), back when a phone call cost 10 cents and pay phones were on every city corner. The Man Who Fell to Earth: 1976 science fiction film starring David Bowie (a rock icon) as an extraterrestrial creature who finds himself in the USA. Currently being remade (phew! saved that one!). Horatio Alger: 19th century American author who specialized in juvenile fiction featuring underprivileged citizens who rise, through hard work and moral fortitude, to middle class comfort. Carry Coals to Newcastle: To contribute something not needed, ie, to bring coals to Newcastle on Tyne, England’s prime coal-mining area. Go to Hell in a Handbasket: Who the hell knows? But it’s probably not a good thing. Susan Toepfer posts regularly at The Bumpy Ride, trueslant.com/susantoepfer/ Florida Weekly 7 29 09 THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE IS A RICH AND COLORFUL thing, full of strange words and unusual phrases. NANCY STETSON nstetson@floridaweekly.com "One thing I like about language is the way it reflects our culture, our social history," says writer Ralph Keyes (his last name rhymes with eyes.) "There's just endless variation and I think revelation about ourselves in the way we speak, the words we use." Mr. Keyes, perhaps best known for his bestseller "Is There Life After High School?" which was made into a Broadway musical, recently released "I Love It When You Talk Retro: Hoochie Coochie, Double Whammy, Drop a Dime, and the Forgotten Origins of American Speech." ($25.95, St. Martin's Press) Retrotalk, or retroterms, he says, are words or phrases that make sense to people of the same era, but may not make sense to younger generations, or to immigrants. For example, he writes, "Retrotalk is a slippery slope of puzzling allusions to past phenomena. Such allusions take the form of retroterms, verbal artifacts that hang around in our national conversation long after the topic they refer to has galloped into the sunset. They are verbal fossils, ones that outlive the organism that made their impression in the first place. They could be a person, a product, a past bestseller, an old radio or TV show, an athletic contest, a comic strip, an acronym, or an advertisement long forgotten." Think of it as looking at the generation gap from a different angle. Each new generation has always formed their own slang and catch-phrases, partially in order to differentiate themselves from their elders. But the older generation's phrases and common terms of reference may be equally indecipherable to those younger. For example, he says that cultural references such as "you sound like a broken record," "stuck in a groove," "45 rpm" "flip side" and "B-side" might not make any sense to a generation that uses iPods. They might not know what "bigger than a breadbox" means, or "98-pound weakling," what Watergate was, or why you shouldn't drink the Kool-Aid. Mr. Keyes's son Scott was born right after the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster occurred in Ukraine. And when he was in middle school, he went up to his mother and asked, "Mom, who's this Cher Noble I keep hearing about?" "Isn't that funny?" Mr. Keyes says. "And so understandable. "I saw a movie once, it might have been 'Raising Arizona.' And this young woman goes into a motel, closes the door. And it's an old motel, and has a rotary phone. She looks at it and scowls, and then she picks up the receiver and starts punching the holes in the dial! It's like, 'Come on, why isn't this working?' "But think about the terms we still use that are related to actually dialing a rotary phone: dial tone. Dial-up service to get onto the Internet. Dial for dollars. These are all based on an obsolete technology. And that's the esssence of a retroterm." Some old words are applied to new products, he says. For example, dashboard used to refer to an "angled board used to protect buggy users from the muddy backspash of horses' hooves." Now we use it for the inside panel of a car behind the steering wheel. And Mac computer users know the term as something that shows mini-applications called widgets. In his book, Mr. Keyes writes that "new circumstances demand new words, however, and Americans have always been up to the task of supplying them. A recurring question in this book is why some endure as retroterms while others don't." He comes up with a list. Retroterms strike a chord, fill a void, excite strong feeling and are fun to say. "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" didn't last as long as a catch-phrase, but "Where's the beef?" did. Orwellian, he says, is more fun to say than Kiplingesque. And words such as "cootie," "rope-a-dope," "sizzle" and "bimbo" are just fun to say. But even those of the same generation might not understand all retroterms. In one humorous story in "I Love It When You Talk Retro," Mr. Keyes recounts the story of an older woman who saw the word "Ka-ching!" in a headline. She thought the term came from China, so asked all her Asian friends what it meant, not realizing it was the sound an old manual cash register makes. Mr. Keyes's favorite phrase is "98- pound weakling." "I grew up reading comic books with these Charles Atlas ads, where Max, the 98-pound weakling, got sand kicked in his face," he says. (After going through the Charles Atlas plan, Max returns to beat up the bully and win the girl.) "And I like some of these where I had to learn (their origins)," he says. "For example, scuttlebutt was the water barrel where sailors gathered on ships. The barrel was called the butt, and the hole where you got the water out of was called the scuttle. They would share gossip like people did over watercoolers later on. That was fun to learn." The book was originally three times the size; Mr. Keyes had to whittle it down to a more manageable length. Still, it's chock full of stories of how certain words and phrases came to be, words such as gizmo, chop chop, cold turkey, blue stocking, mug shot, cut a rug and nudge nudge, wink wink. In the B's alone it refers to Babbitt, Barney Fife, Big Brother, Blanche DuBois, Bonnie and Clyde, the Boston Strangler, Buck Rogers and Buster Brown. His fascination with retrotalk, Mr. Keyes says, "is the way that the words and phrases which we use are so indicative of our generation, or what time we grew up in. And I think the catchphrases we rely on are just as ingrained as when we're young as our taste in music, our hairstyle, and the clothes we wear. And that's what I try to talk about in 'I Love It When You Talk Retro.'" http://rockymtnwriter.blogspot.com/2009/08/word.html Rocky Mtn. Writer A word August 11, 2009 Throughout my professional life, I’ve worked hard to avoid using clichés in my writing (except in headlines!) and have tried to be careful with my use of idioms. After three decades, I must say it’s been an emotional roller coaster. I don’t know if my attention to the words I choose even amounts to a hill of beans. Still, the English language, and our use and abuse of it, fascinates me. In his town hall meeting this morning, President Obama made a reference to “bean counters.” I cringed. Does anyone under the age of, say, 40, even know what a bean counter is? That in this case, in the health-care debate (a debate that has also included many references to "reinventing the wheel"), it has nothing to do with beans? The way we use language can break down barriers or form new ones. And clichés and idioms don’t help. They are, by their nature, old-fashioned. After all, the definition of “cliché” is “an overused expression” and it has to be used for a while before it wears out. So many times, calling on clichés announces to the reader or listener that the writer or speaker is just plain old. My 21-year-old daughter recently asked for my advice about how to handle a situation at work. Should she talk to her boss or leave it alone? “It won’t hurt to put in your two cents worth,” I told her. She stared at me blankly. “What does that mean?” she asked. The expression (which hearkens back to a time long ago when postage was really two cents, and you could send a letter stating your opinion) really dated me. Just as dangerous: cultural references writer Ralph Keyes calls “retrotalk.” Comparing someone to Eddie Haskell? Sure to confuse almost anyone under the age of 50 – the iconic show, “Leave It to Beaver,” the TV sitcom where Eddie lived, went off the air in 1963. In an article about this alarming trend, Keyes calls out media types who throw out references to Jimmy the Greek, Howard Beale, Joe Friday, and Rod McKuen. Is there anyone under the age of 30 or even 40 who can tell me what any of those names signify (other than, maybe, Trivial Pursuit fanatics)? Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to be a party pooper about this language thing; just trying to do the right thing. And let me tell you, it’s no walk in the park.