In their popular seminar on corporate writing, Mark Ragan and Jim Ylisela encourage attendees to read The Wall Street Journal. The language and structure of its stories are among the finest in journalism.
No arguments here, although I was surprised to see “synergy” in a news article today about cost-cutting at Anheuser-Busch InBev. There was that nasty bit of jargon in the ninth paragraph:
“The company said it expected to save $2.25 billion annually due to synergies from the Anheuser deal—up from its previous estimate of $1.5 billion—with $1 billion of those cost savings coming in 2009,” reporters John W. Miller and Matthew Dalton wrote.
Sure this word turns up in certain Journal columns and articles on management, but in a news article? And not as part of a quote?
Jargon scored a victory today in the war on common sense language.
Well played, jargon.
UPDATE: Jargon scored a second victory. Shortly after posting this item, I checked my PR Week daily e-mail and saw this headline and caption:
Leveraging internal comms, online newsrooms, and more
How do I leverage internal communications to maximize my external PR efforts?
Ouch. "Leverage" and "maximize" in one caption.