Inasmuch as viewers object to the use of {their notion of) infantile" and "moronic" expressions by on-air reporters, why are they not objecting to the use, by all reporters and journalists, of such non-existent terms as "majorly," "impactful," "impact" as a verb --- "impacting" and "impacted" --- and, most recently, the grossly and obviously incorrect "impacts" as a plural noun and the silly redundancy of "these ones" and "those ones."
NOTE: Other than a reporter using "impactful" a lot, everyone on air at WGRZ-TV speaks and dresses impeccably, which is greatly appreciated.
It's a bit troubling, though, that most Americans don't see what's wrong with "impactful" and why it's never been used before its recent, cringe-worthy introduction as the latest incorrect offspring of "impact," the noun. The first birth began the use of "impact" as a verb at least ten yrs. ago, as in "impacted" and "impacting," suspected by those educated before 1966 to be the result of younger journalists --- GEN X, Y, Z, and possibly the Boomers' youngest half --- having difficulties distinguishing the meaning and spelling of "affect," the verb, from that of "effect," the noun, despite it being as easy as connecting the "a" in affect to "action," the role of a verb, and/or connecting the "e" to a noun like eel or envelope. Voila! Problem solved, AND one need remember only one clue to use both words correctly.
If the public is "affected" by XYZ, we know what is meant and only need info on type of effect . . . positive, negative, etc. "Impact" means "forceful contact; the force of impression of one thing on another; a significant effect," as in "the impact of science on society" and "an environmental impact study." The difference between "impact" and its synonyms is that the contact described is the result of one thing being "impelled toward the other," as in the car that splits in two upon "impact" with a tree. (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2009, pg. 622.)
So, besides sounding terrible to those who know it's wrong, what does it mean, really, for the public to be "impacted" by a thing or for a thing to be "impacting" them?
"Impacted" can be used as an adjective (impacted tooth), but how does the above translate into use as a verb and into "impactful," the use of which experts label "barbarous"? Grateful is full of gratitude; painful is full of pain. But, what are you or anything else full of if "impactful"? What does it mean when a reporter says "We're talking about impactful winter weather --- snow heading our way . . ." instead of using a word that's more accurate and clarifying, like "disruptive winter weather" for example? What does "Then we've got the more impactful storm system arriving late in the day" mean? And what is impelling toward what?
Too many Americans would now say "the blast impacted the bystanders." Compare that with "the bystanders felt the concussion of the blast," which, in that context, implies they felt the "disrupting or weakening effects" of the explosion. (Ibid) We have the words to be precise, and, thus, more informative or colorful or meaningful in our communication, so why bother saying anything if all you have is only vague, invalid words that don't make sense? Doesn't all the above illustrate the difference between a lazy mind and a vibrant, working mind?
That millions of Americans use these terms doesn't make them correct. It just means most Americans speak and write incorrectly . . . and don't know it or don't care enough to open a dictionary, yet they all want their children to receive the very best education. Writing and speaking are cognitive activities. We all need to be deeply concerned that, so far, younger generations continue to ignore that, as seen in the errors in articles and essays posted on the Internet, but it's those related to education and/or written by educators that should really scare the **** out of everyone.
Parents need to join teachers and principals to make sure public schools and the K-6 curriculum do NOT repeat the last 50+ yrs. An inadequate system = inadequate results = seriously adverse consequences affecting our entire society and the high standards of quality & excellence that are slipping away.
So, your first assignment, should you choose to accept it, is: Use the facts to determine why it's only the last 50 yrs. we don't want repeated rather than the last 100-200 years of K-12 public education (emphasis on K-6).
HINT: If the pundits are right to claim an improved K-12 public school system requires eliminating or restructuring (using lots of technology) the Industrial Era system of the last 150-200 years, then why did students' test scores not decline until AFTER 1966? What changed? What if the problem is not the Industrial Era system but what "they" did to it after 1966-70? The answer is the key to the first steps toward improvement that MUST be taken, but why? read more
