"I saw this, and could not tell if it was more funny or more sad. "Perspicacious" is not that obscure a word in the first place (I would estimate it around the 75th percentile level on the SAT)." Personally, I'd say you're giving too much credit to the masses. A quick, non-scientific survey of about 15-16 people in my office resulted in my being the only person in the sample who knew the definition...and I have to admit to looking it up to confirm that my definition was indeed correct. To make matters worse, we're a hybrid education/technology company, so the demographic in my survey sample skews more-educated and higher vocabulary-skilled than the general population. Doug Fields Tampa, FL
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PGage Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 1:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Did Amanpour Need ABC's Pop-Up Definition? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote: In the course of moderating a recorded discussion on Sunday's "This Week," Chrstiane Amanpour used the word "perspicacious" and ABC felt that the typical viewer of Sunday morning discussion programs didn't know what she was talking about: http://watching-tv.ew.com/2011/07/04/christiane-amanpour-perspicaciousabc-ne ws/ Personally, I agree with Ken Tucker (and Olbermann and other people who've responded to this online) that the "This Week" audience either knows the word or will figure it out and doesn't need a lower third giving them the definition--what surprises me is how many commenters are defending ABC, although I wonder if it's more to attack Tucker than anything else (something tells me that the only blog where people are generally nice to critics is Ebert's blog). I saw this, and could not tell if it was more funny or more sad. "Perspicacious" is not that obscure a word in the first place (I would estimate it around the 75th percentile level on the SAT). It would be interesting to know the average IQ of the audience for "This Week" - I think it is safe to estimate that it is above the national average. I think the majority of people watching that show either knew the word, or would have figured it out from the context. An even higher percentage would likely be offended at the assumption that they needed the word defined for them. This reminds me of one of the most pernicious [1: highly injurious <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injurious> or destructive : deadly <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadly> ; 2: Archaic : wicked] <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wicked> developments in college-level textbooks in the last 15 years, which is the frequent marginal definition of terms. I would not mind occasional definition of key technical terms (though even this is mostly unnecessary, since key technical terms are almost always explained in the text as they are introduced). But they highlight and define general, college-level vocabulary words, which raises the question why a person who does not possess a basic college level vocabulary is taking a college level course? (Yes, I know there are non-native speakers to think about, but I doubt this practice is motivated by or aimed at helping them). More interestingly is the insight this graphic gives into the mentality of ABC News - they are apparently very worried that Amanpour is too smart for their room. By extension, I guess it sheds light on the low level of the discourse on most news shows aimed at a broad, mass audience - if you can't say anything a person who either does not know, nor know how to look up, the meaning of a work like perspicacious, your working with a pretty restricted range. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
