10 new york | march 2–15, 2020
LSend correspondence [email protected].
Or go tonymag.comto respond to individual stories.Comments1 For New York’s latest issue, literary
critic Molly Young explored the seem
ingly unstoppable spread of corporate
speak (“Garbage Language,” February
17–March 1). Many people who work in
industries inundated with “garbage lan
guage” contributed their own experiences.
“Recalls to mind Goethe’s quote:When
ideas fail, words come handy,” commenter
LaliZ wrote, explaining that as an editor in
the financial industry, “I do battle against
garbage language every day. Sometimes I
even win.” Kelleyalison wrote, “I hate how
this garbage language has seeped into
academia, so that ‘on-boarding,’ ‘think
partners,’ etc. are now in fairly common
usage even at the Ivy League school
where I work.” Patrick Porter elaborated
on that: “For the rest of us, some of whom
work in education, garbage business speak
is worse than demoralizing. It relentlessly
promotes the barbarism that we are all put
on earth to make money, that education
must be geared to that task, and measured
accordingly.” Allison Braley, a commun
ications professional, wrote, “The bigger
issue is the way many companies use jar-
gon to keep minorities, newcomers and
people with a different education out of
the conversation.” In praising the essay,
Leon Neyfakh, the cocreator of Slow
Burn, wrote, “Part of what makes this ...
essay so good is the visceral contrast be
tween the garbage language she’s describ
ing and the relentless clarity and precision
of the language she’s using.” Chef Padma
Lakshmi t gua
bane of my to k
not alone.” Writing for Slate, though, Mark
Morgioni challenged Young’s premise and
came to the defense of some corporate lan
guage: “My job would be much more com
plicated—and take far, far longer—with
out it ... Used correctly and judiciously,
those terms serve two invaluable purpos
es: They save time, and they clearly com
municate meaning to peers.At its core,
garbage language is just a shared set of
idioms that help people move through
meetings and accurately define tasks.”
Commenter AnnabelAndrews concurred
with Morgioni, “I really feel seen by Slate
right now. Corporate speak is silly but once
I stopped being uptight about it, I kind of
enjoyed it ... A new one making the rounds
at my work issocialize,as in ‘let’s finalize
this plan and then socialize it.’ ” Some
readers found inspiration in garbage lan
guage in praising the story: @twinksy
called it, “Such a ‘valueadd.’ ‘Key take
away’? Corporate America, ‘regroup’ and
‘evolve’ away from garbage language.”
AndThe New York Times Book Review’s
Pamela Paul added,“Molly Young puts
into plain but excellent words everything
I feel and believe about corporate jargon.
Hope to touch base with you at the next
fireside chat, [Molly]. I’ll bring the fire
place. Will circle back soon!”2 Stephen S. Hall’s investigation into
the vaping industry spurred a number
of letters from experts in the field (“Who
Thought Sucking on a Battery Was a
Good Idea?,” February 3–16). Thomas
Eissenberg, the codirector of the Center
he Study acco Products at Vir
a Comm th University, wrote,
“Lungs evolved to deliver oxygen and
expel carbon dioxide. Challenging themwith daily doses of heated chemicals is a
bad idea that is potentially lethal.” Sean
Callahan, a pulmonary and criticalcare
physician in Salt Lake City, said, “Vaping in
the United States remains the Wild West
and our leaders’ feeble attempts have done
little to tame it.” Others suggested that vap
ing is still an important tool for stamping
out smoking. David B. Abrams of New
York University’s School of Global Public
Health wrote that “data conclusively dem
onstrate that nicotine vaping is substan
tially safer than smoking deadly cigarettes:
Switching saves many smokers’ lives. Do
not let a moral panic trigger hysteria that
leads society to treat nicotine vaping as if
it is the same as deadly smoking. Doing
so will prolong smoking and its horrific
damage to health—based on fear, not
facts. 1,300 American smokers prema
turely die daily.” Sarah Milov, author of The
Cigarette: A Political History, disagreed:
“Public attention and political resources
are now momentarily focused on the spike
in vaping associated lung injuries in oth
erwise healthy teenagers. But the history
of tobacco should caution us against
thinking that even acute and deadly lung
illnesses are the biggest problems with
e-cigarettes. It took decades for the full
consequences of smoking-related dis-
eases to reveal themselves; it took longer
still for the harms of secondhand smoke to
become apparent. The history of tobacco
suggests our limited capacity to anticipate
risk—and, perhaps most tragically, our
abundant ability to individualize blame
once risks are known.”40 new york | february 17 march 1 2020By Molly Youngrequire an This will
omni-channel push.Garbage Language:Whydo corporations speak the way they do?level-setJustto
moment—for akey learnings, we can With these
co-create innovative win-wins.the business-What’s
critical ask?How do we futureproof
the initiative?a pin in this and Let’s drop
take it off-line.february 17 march 1 2020 | new york 41February 17 March 1 2020ByBarbara McQuade, Ezra Klein, Barbara Lee, Frank Rich, Kara Swisher, Jonathan Chait, What winning would look like.
David Wallace Wells, and others, p 10The Second Term®