I spend a lot of time with words in my job as an editor and producer at the The Guardian. Choice of language can make or break a story so getting it right really matters.
Labouring over the impact of words and tone more broadly is an exercise in audience awareness. Will readers understand this? Will they care? Or will we be greeted by a symphony of crickets?
The following paragraph in E. Alex Jung’s interview with writer/actor/genius Michaela Coel crystallises a question I return to often: how do we talk about subjects of injustice (eg racial, environmental, gender-based) with renewed language that encourages people to lean in and listen?
Which words have people become desensitised to or even allergic to and how can we replace/evolve them?
I say this knowing full well that some people’s allergic reaction to words such as ‘racism’ and ‘microaggression’ flares up because they have already carved a line in the sand.
They are unwilling to listen in good faith. Often because they are desperate to defend something — usually their sense of self (“I am a good person, therefore I can’t be racist”).
But sometimes people switch off when they feel something is insincere or dogmatic. Those people may be easier to reach if we:
- Tell them a story
- Use the element of surprise and avoid tired words/phrases
- Speak/write in our own voice vs an adopted voice
- Replace academic speech with everyday language (Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are all pros at this)
What other techniques have you noticed help land a message successfully?
