Forum: Author Hangout

Driver is the appropriate word.

The only other option I can think of would be "I'll admit that person was reckless. She never even slowed down."

You'd think, after more than a century of driving cars, we'd have come up with a few decent alternatives by now. "Automobilist"? Really?

Took your advice, Grant. I changed it o:

"I'll admit the woman was reckless. She never even slowed down."

That works because her sex was already established, even though she was never identified.

Ha-ha, technically, I should use "supposed woman".

I don't think I've ever heard the term "motorist" used in spoken dialogue anywhere other than a drivers' exam. The commercial terms don't apply, since this was a single woman driving an SUV in a residential neighborhood. (I was going for the paradox of a woman driver almost running over another woman's child, and supposedly knowing better because she's a potential mother herself.)

The commercial terms don't apply, since this was a single woman driving an SUV in a residential neighborhood.

Maybe you can use a word to describe her and not her activity eg.

The soccer mom wasn't paying attention while driving her son down the road ... etc using a term suitable for the character.

Or one for the way she drove..

She drove like an old woman with dementia ... etc

The best modern option if you really want to avoid driver is motorist.

It's more a UK term, than a US term.

I find myself really going for profanity in the first use of "driver."

Since I'm not too sure of the context, I'll leave it in your capable hands.

The first speaker was a newspaper reporter, interviewing the second speaker, who was the primary witness in the incident. The newsman wouldn't curse about a potential story, while the witness was playing down his role in the incident, not wanting the story to be written in the first place. (i.e. the witness is downplaying it, while the reporter is being polite while provocative.

This discussion is reminiscent of how those that searched for alternatives to 'said' used to be. If you've found the best word for the context, readers won't be annoyed if it's repeated. In fact they will probably be more annoyed if you go out of your way to employ less suitable synonyms.

AJ

This discussion is reminiscent of how those that searched for alternatives to 'said' used to be. If you've found the best word for the context, readers won't be annoyed if it's repeated. In fact they will probably be more annoyed if you go out of your way to employ less suitable synonyms.

As I said, I don't object to repeating words when it's necessary, but simply having one character repeating something just said seems needlessly redundant, so I tend to rephrase the terms slightly, to make it less repetitive.

But I'll often write segments based on science principals. In those instances, I'll often reuse the same terms/phrases over and over, simply because there's no way to avoid it. That's just a fact of life, but simply duplicating what was just said seems ... lazy.

Hopefully a reporter would be repeating the words used by a witness, otherwise they wouldn't be reporting the story, they'd be making up their own version of it.

Reporters have the option to either give a direct quote, and state it as such, or to give a summary and identify it as such. there are times when a summary is better than a quote.

they'd hopefully be getting the facts,

That was the way it was up to about 1950, but not since then, so why try to establish an old trend the media feel is outdated?

And, sorry, this is a statement of observed fact, not an attempt at humour. Look at some of the stuff the media said during, and about, the military conflicts of the last 60 years.

Not enough people are willing to actually pay for well done, well researched news.

You know, I could live with a news service that does limited research on a subject, as long as they verify what they do research and present. What I don't like is when they deliberately restrict the research to only one aspect to bias it in a direction they want. And what's worse is when they deliberately lie about what they're presenting to push their own hidden agenda when they know the full truth.

Once you get past the local news, most news is a mix of barely disguised press releases and softball interviews.

Don't forget the heavily biased political bovine excreta.

I've found it to be about 50/50. There's been the odd occasion where it was mostly correct, and another where it was mostly wrong, but overall it's been 50/50 for stories I've read or seen on the news that I knew about first or second hand.

Getting back on topic (since I'm not sure how much this was directed (by Grant) at my representation of the reporter), in my sample, it's an issue with a single reporter, and after this, another reporter cranks it up a notch, making the first reporter look like the nice guy.

I wasn't writing it as an attack on Gonzo Journalism (a product of the 1960s), but simply highlighting how each reporter has a different approach, some sympathetic, and some a bit more devious (i.e. you initially think they're on your side, only to learn later they're trying to pillory you).

@richardshagrin

A free press has freedom for the owner of the press, to print nearly anything he wants.

Or, putting it into more recent context, they're free to put everything single outrageous thing Trump says, while paying scant attention to major speeches by every other candidate for office.

@DS

Not enough people are willing to actually pay for well done, well researched news.

Case in points, the most through papers in the country, like the NY Times and the Chicago Tribune, are both struggling financially, cutting their research staffs significantly while trying to find new income sources, while sources like FOX, which specialize in repeating unsustainable reports (aka. Obama being a Muslim) draw millions of readers for largely scurrilous (yes, they report news the other stations won't, but they're not know for their well-researched opinions).

@Red61544

The woman behind the wheel not only threatened her son but three others by her irresponsible driving.

That works, but it seems to distance the subject. It's no longer "the driver responsible", but merely "the person behind the wheel who just happened to be in the car at the time.

It's an example of "passive vs. active verbs" (or nouns in this case). I think I'm happy with my solution (changing the other "driver" reference to "I'll admit [the woman] was reckless.".

If the reporter mis-quoted the witness I'd expect the witness to correct them, and the reporter to confirm that correction.

In this scene, it's a case of 'Gonzo Journalism', where the reporter reveals something, just to entice someone to respond so they can hit them with something else, purposely making them look bad.

Also, this is spoken dialogue, where the reporter is repeating quotes reading from his notes. However, that doesn't mean the person he's interviewing needs to use the same language.

After considering it, I went in another direction:

"I'm sure his mother is thankful, but quoting another source, 'you ran out of the house and into the street without concern for your own safety'."

"And who told you that?"

It's not quite as strong, but he's still challenging the reporter's ethics, which serves the purpose.

Not sure why these two cases threw me so much. The chapter has several duplicate phrases, many of which I left intact because there wasn't an alternative, but these two just bugged me. There was simply no reason I couldn't come up with an alternative.

I love my thesauruses, but many times, they're absolutely useless!

thesaurus=book of extinct words.

Correction. Thesaurus: A book of incomplete lists. They provide plenty of words, but your choice of those word lists is extremely limited, and they often contain absolutely useless terms.

Or even just woman, though either way, that may come across as she threatened her own son.

Good point, that wasn't clear from the included text.

Clarification: The "threatened not only her son" refers to the person pushing the issue by demanding more attention of reckless driving which first brought it to the reporter's attention. She's separate from the reckless woman driver. I might use "woman" for "This one driver threatened not only the woman's son, but ...". That clarifies a possibly confusing sentence.

I knew that was the intent and it was reasonably clear using driver. However, if you substitute woman for driver it would become unclear, so it would need a bit more rewording.

I understand, and you have a good point, but since I replaced the second "driver" in the second paragraph, I think I'm clear while also avoiding the repetition.

As far as confusion between which woman I'm referring to, the role of the two women was pretty well established before this particular segment occurs.