THE ECONOMIST: 1st COMMANDMENT, YOU WILL HAVE NO OTHER STYLE BUT MINE
For the Economist everything is a question of style. The London periodical, now overlooking the Thames al Victoria Embankment, is also an impressive think tank. A think-tank obsessed with style. Its contents must be recognized immediately, as if they were broadcast by a loudspeaker, such as the leader's proclamation.
Speaking of loudspeakers and leader, if you have an hour and a half enjoy the great essay on the acting style of the Loren-Mastroianni couple in Ettore Scola's film A Special Day (streamed on Chile, euros 2,99). If you really don't have time, or if you've already seen it, as is likely, watch at least the rumba scene (one and a half minutes) on YouTube. Cinema (sorry, cinema, Robert Bresson would say) in ninth heaven. There's not even the word to say it.
WHO IS?
The articles in the Economist are not signed and we don't even know who the editor of the magazine is. Never let us get attached to someone's style…! We learn the name of a journalist or editor only from the piece announcing his "departure" from the paper.
If this “carbonaria” bothers you, you can ease your spirits on place which contains the succinct cards of the members of the editorial staff. I am a small army. And, in any case, you will never understand who wrote a particular piece.
However, there is absolutely no carbonaria at the Economist, and conflict of interest is a sacrilege for the magazine. The Agnellis themselves, who hold 43,4% of the shares, have just 20% of voting rights. And when journalists talk about the family or Exor, they are obliged to inform the reader about the position that the Italian family holds in ownership of the newspaper.
If you have 8 minutes, maybe not now, read yourself what the Economist writes about himself (we have translated it into Italian for you).
THE STYLE IS THE CONTENT
Every summer, the editorial staff of the Economist offers a few short internships for aspiring young journalists. Applicants must submit, among other things, an article of 600 words, which is also the average length of articles in the magazine.
The topic is at will, but for the style there are precise provisions. Scrolling through them (but I'm going by heart) I got the idea that, once the minimum wage has been fulfilled, knowing how to be witty and never pompous counts a lot (attention!, followers of Cicero).
The founder Walter Bagehot (pronounced Bajut) called this approach "expressive colloquialisms". You have to use a lot of Sidol to polish the piece to send to the Economist. It has to flow like a bowling ball thrown by Jeffrey “Drugo” Lebowski.
LOOK AT YOURSELF
I'm not exaggerating. Check for yourself. It's online. On July 8 last Lane Greene, language columnist, and Anton LaGuardia, digital editor, held a webinar on the topic “Language and the principles of style at The Economist”. An hour and a half of brainwashing.
Leading the style of the Economist staff are the famous six elementary rules of George Orwell's writing. If you break any of them, rod Orwell, “you will write something absolutely vile”. Not only! you will lose all hope of becoming trainees at the Economist. For those who want to learn more there is also this to watch.
Almost twice a week, in a specific column called "Johnson" - in honor of Samuel Johnson, the solitary compiler of the Dictionary of the English Language of 1756, someone from the editorial board of the magazine discusses, from the point of view of the Economist's philosophy of language, a linguistic or lexical theme (of the English language of course).
WE NEED A VOCABULARY OF STYLE
Style is a very serious matter for anyone who publishes something. There is nothing more ungraceful and heavy than offending a person or disrespecting them just because, quite simply, we have used careless language or a hasty attitude.
We really need an automatic style corrector, capable of extracting the right tone from a special vocabulary, perhaps compiled by the academics of the Crusca.
I don't want to enter here into the question of political correctness (which finds its first manifestation in language) because it would take us too far.
I mean that the language of the politically correct (as well as that, specularly, analogous, of the politically incorrect) must always have a style that keeps the level of public and private discourse high. Each language has its own vocabulary, syntax and linguistic register for doing so.
In language and in words there are infinite possibilities as Raymond Queneau shows us for his part and as Umberto Eco gives us definitive proof with his masterful translation into Italian of the Style exercises by Queneau. 99 linguistic variations of the same story. A number that the Economist would have liked.
T'e understood?, not everyone, however, has the linguistic skills or registers of Queneau, Eco or Bartezzaghi; in any case, why settle for a second choice at the risk of blunders?
GOOGLE HELP US
Who can help us? Who, huh? But Google, of course!
Think what Google has done with "Translate" or with the almost always adequate corrections of words typed in an approximate way (especially if this occurs in a non-native language) in its search bar. “Perhaps you were looking for…”. Thanks Google! Then, maybe, it follows you like a shadow: but, patience, that's okay.
We have writing assistants that work quite well now: they check spelling, grammar, suggest synonyms and complete stumps of words.
Now Google wants to climb another peak. Last May 18, Sundar Pichai, at the "Google I / O developer conference", announced a tool Online to implement, in its “Google docs” suite of applications, the use of an inclusive language, stripped of sexist or racial prejudices.
It is available in English and other languages as well. I didn't understand if it also exists in Italian, but it will certainly arrive, unless Google (it has already happened many other times), leaves the project on a dead end to catch another train.
JOY OR BOREDOM?
In every language, beyond possessive pronouns, there are expressions that are used only for one gender but not for the other. Sometimes they are neutral, other times they are epithets and it may happen that, at the moment, an alternative does not come to mind simply because one does not exist in our lexical baggage.
The masculine gender does not always include the feminine gender, as was thought at the time of the Flinstones. With a little effort, we could certainly do something better. Now to remind us – with style – there is the Inclusive language dictionary of Google.
Thanks to this dictionary Online, everything will shine brighter and we will be read with more joy, even if someone at the beginning will think, perhaps well-founded, "Uh, how boring!".
Google's announcement, in fact, immediately annoyed the Daily Mail: "Google Docs goes woke" wrote the London newspaper, but Google received the cautious applause of Johnson.
Johnson is, however, right to wonder whether it should be a technology company that gives us a vocabulary of inclusive language. Is it any wonder? Now they do everything!
At the Economist they certainly don't need Google Docs to avoid sexist blunders. Inclusive language is like a new and somewhat exotic food: you have to think about it, but in the end you include it in your diet. I leave you with this linguistic performance absolutely inappropriate.
