MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

If you are a new user, click here to
read the Overview to this section

Not everything that pertains to the president is “presidential”

It has become very bothersome that many Philippine media people don’t see anything wrong with using the adjective “presidential” to describe anything and everything that pertains to the Philippine president. Of course, it’s perfectly proper to use that adjective in these terms— “presidential election,” “presidential staff,” “presidential task force,” “presidential speech,” “presidential prerogatives,” even “presidential habits.” Indeed, these attributes or possessions of the president or of the presidency can all be legitimately described as “presidential.” But I think it should be obvious that people and other entities related to the president by blood, affinity, proximity, or special circumstance—perhaps an official assignment or even a romantic involvement—aren’t necessarily “presidential” by any stretch and shouldn’t be described as such.

It’s semantically absurd, in particular, to call the president’s parents “the presidential father” and “the presidential mother,” to call a media person assigned to cover the president’s official activities as “a presidential reporter,” to call someone the president is dating as “the presidential squeeze*,” or to call a cat or a dog that the president is fond of as “the presidential pet.” I submit that the proper and accurate terms for them are, plainly, “the president’s father,” “the president’s mother,” “a reporter covering the president,” “the president’s squeeze,” and “the president’s pet.”

But look at how some of the Philippine broadsheets and broadcast networks have been indiscriminately misusing the adjective “presidential” in their news reportage during the past several weeks:

(1) Philippine Star: “presidential sisters Ballsy Cruz and Pinky Abellada”

(2) Manila Bulletin: “the Presidential sister Kris Aquino-Yap”

(3) ABS-CBN News: “presidential stylist”

In the interest of good English, assuming that it was the reporters themselves who had misguidedly used the adjective “presidential” in the news stories above, the editors or desk people of the media outlets should have routinely corrected the misuse in each case as follows:

(1)
“Taking their cue from their brother, the president’s sisters Ballsy Cruz and Pinky Abellada, along with other relatives, eschewed VIP treatment and insisted on being treated as ordinary passengers at the airport.”

(2)
“This was confirmed by the airport’s Media Affairs Office who said that the President’s sister left for Los Angeles, California aboard Philippine Airlines flight PR102.”

(3)
“Liz Uy: From fashion editor to the president’s stylist”

The adjective “presidential” is actually not the only word related to the presidency that’s being indiscriminately misused by Philippine media. The other is, of course, the noun “presidentiable,” which isn’t even recognized yet by the more authoritative English dictionaries. Indeed, during the campaign for the recent Philippine national elections, “presidentiable” enjoyed very wide usage in the domestic mass media, accounting for the great majority of the combined 672,000 results reported by Google for “presidentiable”/ “presidentiables.”

As far as I know, the only dictionary that has taken cognizance of “presidentiable” as an English word is the Double-Tongued Dictionary, which bills itself as “A lexicon of fringe English, focusing on slang, jargon, and new words.” Here’s how this dictionary defines “presidentiable”:      

Now, in closing, the question I would like to ask is this: Should we be proud that the Philippine mass media is at the forefront of an indirect lobby for the inclusion of the noun “presidentiable” in English dictionaries simply by indiscriminately using it? I have mixed feelings about the matter. As to using the adjective “presidential” in semantic situations that obviously don’t call for it, however, I submit that reporters and editors in the Philippines could set a good example for good English usage by deciding to cease and desist from using it in their news reportage and commentaries. 

---------
*I’m actually very uncomfortable with the term “presidential squeeze” but I think it would be a logical consequence of the Philippine media’s very liberal use of the colloquial noun “squeeze” when referring to the president’s girlfriend even in mainstream journalistic reportage. Here, for instance, is a passage in a major broadsheet that uses the word: “Aquino had a ‘movie date’ with current squeeze, Valenzuela City Councilor Shalani Soledad, last Friday night at Rockwell Mall in Makati City for the premiere of a documentary film on the last election, titled ‘Noy.’” (“Aquino to lose half of presidential salary to income tax,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 30, 2010) Frankly, “squeeze” sounds so out of place in that news story.

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:   

(1) Manila Bulletin: Bad sentence construction

The lead sentence in the news story above is in serious semantic trouble. Because of bad sentence construction, it’s actually implying that the thousands of complaining taxi and drivers are all senior citizens—meaning all of them are 65 years of age or older—but that they resent having been granted a 20 percent discount in transport fares. Isn’t that absurd?

The problem arose because as constructed, the sentence mistook the drivers themselves instead of their taxi and jeepney units as the object of the expanded coverage of the Expanded Senior Citizens Law. What needed to be said, of course, was that the coverage was expanded not to cover the drivers but their vehicles.

Below is corrected version of that sentence that puts everything in its proper place:

“Thousands of taxi and jeepney drivers from all over the country complained on Thursday about the inclusion of their vehicles in the coverage of the Expanded Senior Citizens Law that grants the elderly 20-percent discount in transport fares.”

(2) Manila Bulletin: Unnecessary hyphenation of compound modifier

In English, the modern style prescription is not to hyphenate a compound modifier consisting of an adverb ending in “-ly” and an adjective. Here’s that sentence reflecting this correction:

“Newly installed Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said on Thursday that she would review the “Morong 43” case to determine if there was indeed basis to file the criminal charges against the 43 health workers.”

(3) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Scurrilous language by reporters in their own stories

There seems to have been a terrible breakdown of journalistic discipline in the reporting of the above story, one that perhaps borders on libel.

To my recollection, this is one those very rare instances when reporters covering official proceedings have taken the extreme liberty of quoting one another in their news stories to be able to badmouth a former president and newly elected legislator. Normally, reporters take the trouble of interviewing third parties on the scene to get their comments and impressions of what’s happening. This is because as a rule, what the reporters feel and say to one another during the coverage—particularly scurrilous things—shouldn’t be allowed to intrude into their supposedly objective reporting.

No matter how reporters may dislike or even hate the subjects of their coverage, I think there has been a serious breach of civility in this case—one that warrants a serious review by the media organizations of the news coverage conduct of their reporters.

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section