Everywhere you look, people are doing it. A Google search of the expression reveals the following headlines from the past week alone:
"Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Reach Out to Latino Voters in Las Vegas"
"Rev. Graham to Pope Francis: 'Reach Out And Build a Bridge to Donald Trump'"
"Steelers Reach Out to Free Agent Cornerback Brice McCain"
"Police Probing I-78 Pileup Reach Out to Public"
"Friends, Clients Reach Out to Help Colorado Springs Massage Therapist"
"How the Indian Railways is Leveraging Twitter to Reach Out to the Millions Who Ride on its Trains"
That last headline gets bonus points for incorporating "leveraging," another expression that should join "fidelity" and "paradigm" -- for example, "implementing the strategic initiative with fidelity will cause a paradigm change" -- in the Overworked or Useless Waste of Syllables Hall of Fame.
While you're at it, induct "implement" and "initiative," as well.
But "reach out" is the darling of the moment, favored by every organizational lackey who wants to put a positive spin on contacting somebody else. Doctors are reaching out to their patients, lawyers to their clients, and teachers to their students and their students' parents.
I get it, I guess. Reaching out sounds much more friendly and proactive, an act of individual and corporate charity.
It's also lazy headline writers' shorthand for any story that hasn't really happened yet. At the time of the above headlines, we didn't know if Hillary or Bernie would prevail in Nevada. Pope Francis' attempts to "reach out" to Donald Trump hadn't yet devolved into the war of words that culminated in The Donald calling the pontiff's comments "disgraceful." The Steelers may have made an overture toward a new player, but the jury is out on whether he will wear the black and gold next season.
"Reach out" is also this journalism generation's kinder, gentler way of saying that a source had no comment before press time. It casts the journalist and her organization in the most positive light -- we "reached out" in an effort at fairness and equanimity -- while implying that the grumpy old source didn't or wouldn't respond in time. Bad, bad source.
It also attempts to make something simple sound highfalutin'. A friend noted the similarity to medical personnel who feel compelled to use "ambulate" when describing how a patient walks.
In real life, nobody ambulates. We merely walk. Sometimes we saunter, or even prance (especially when we discover $10 tucked in a spring jacket), but we don't as a rule go on daily ambulations.
The same is true of "reach out." It camouflages much more prosaic actions. A reporter who reaches out to a source probably called, emailed or texted. Be precise, not ornate. Or if you must be vague, use "contact." Then your readers won't know if you phoned the mayor or stood below his second-story window, shouting questions about the budget until police removed you.
Back in August, I included "reach out" in a column about odious expressions. I also mentioned its nefarious partner, "share out." People who love to reach out inevitably love to "share out," which apparently means to tell others what you're doing or what you've done. The "out" serves no linguistic purpose. It's OK just to share.
But it's not OK just to "reach," unless you're describing a physical action: "I can't reach the Oreos on the top shelf." Or a more philosophical observation, like Robert Browning's: "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" Or if you're using "reach" as part of an accepted idiom, such as "reach me between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m."
"Reach out" is on the fast track to idiom status, when it should be stuck on the side of the road, one thumb in the air, while better expressions whizz past. It's unnecessary, imprecise and lazy.
This is the point where I should make some sort of cute, column-ending statement that uses "reach out" in an ironic way and sends away readers with a smile. But I can't. I just can't.
Originally published Feb. 28, 2016, in The Record-Courier.
No comments:
Post a Comment