13
Complicated language made clearer
Annetta Cheek
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: Somewhere on our marketing materials I think Marketplace is described as being business news for the rest of us. We explain what are often complicated business stories in ways that are, hopefully, easy to understand. Unfortunately, a lot of the communications we get in everyday life, whether it's a news stories or letters from your bank or a new government program, are hopelessly confusing. Anybody who's ever tried to read their health or car insurance policies knows what I'm talking about.
There is an organization dedicated to fixing that. It's called Center for Plain Language. They're hosting the first ever awards for the use of good and, also, not so good language next week. Director Annetta Cheek is with us in advance. Annetta, welcome to the program.
Annetta Cheek: Glad to be here.
Ryssdal: Tell me a little about the Center for Plain Language. How did you guys get things started?
CHEEK: Well, it started with a group of mostly federal employees who were tying to get the government to write more clearly and realized that we couldn't do everything we wanted to do from our positions within the government, so we formed a nonprofit organization with a few private sector folks. And our goal is to get government and business to communicate more clearly with citizens and customers.
Ryssdal: How's it going so far?
CHEEK: Oh, well, we have a lot of work left to do. You only need to open your mail and you know how we're doing.
Ryssdal: Who are the worst offenders would you say? In the world of corporate America who does it the worst?
CHEEK: I think the finance industry. Every time you get a letter from your bank, particularly, we all got letters recently about the effects of recent legislation on what interest rates they were going to be charging you, and they were pretty impenetrable.
Ryssdal: Not only is the print fine, but you can't understand it once you get your magnifying glass out.
CHEEK: Exactly, exactly. And some of that unfortunately is intentional.
Ryssdal: And basically what happens is we don't read this fine print, and then we're financial losers.
CHEEK: Absolutely. In this recent contest that our center ran, one of the entries for what we called the wonder mark -- which means we wondered what on earth were they thinking about when they wrote that -- was the end-user agreement for a very popular consumer communication product.
Ryssdal: Hold on, I have to stop you here. A consumer communication product? Come on, you're doing your own complex language there.
CHEEK: Well, all right. It was a Blackberry.
Ryssdal: There you go.
CHEEK: It was Blackberry. There we go. All right. If you read it carefully you would see that it said these are our policies today, but we might change our policies tomorrow. And when you say that you agree to this policy, you're agreeing not only to the policies that we wrote today, which you can't read, but to any policy that we might write in the future. And by the way, we aren't going to tell you about those new policies, you have to come back to our website and read this agreement periodically so you know what you agreed to.
Ryssdal: Now we pride ourselves on this program of being able to speak relatively plain English when we're handed things like, I don't know, synthetic CDOs to decipher and to explain to the listening public. We sent you some samples of our writing. How did we do?
CHEEK: Well, your stories were pretty good. And the first one you sent me was very good.
Ryssdal: Remind us what that one was.
CHEEK: It was about controlling the value of currency.
Ryssdal: Yeah, so let me, just so folks know what we're talking about, I will you read you the actual introduction to that story that I wrote. So here goes, it was me, and I was setting up a story on currency trading, and here we go. "One country trying to control the value of its currency is really nothing new." So you object to the word "really" right there.
CHEEK: Well, yes, I don't have a really strong objection to it.
Ryssdal: Touche.
CHEEK: But yes, you don't really need it. But normally I find interviews like this to be in pretty good shape. And so you asked me to comment on this, and I was looking for things that could have made it a little bit better and that was one thing I found. A little further down you used the word "nefarious," which is one of my favorite words, but I might not have used it in a story on the radio. In print where people could look it up if they needed to -- fine.
Ryssdal: So as you get set to hand out these awards, what do you hope to gain by this? I mean you'll get some publicity, you'll do an event at the National Press Club, and then probably everybody is going to go back to being as confusing as we were.
CHEEK: I'm sure. And we know there's no magic bullet. We're trying to get the public to pay a little more attention to this and to object. I think the public just accepts this kind of stuff because they don't think anything is possible. And of course, something else is possible.
Ryssdal: Dr. Annetta Cheek from the Center for Plain Language in Washington. Dr. Cheek, thanks so much for your time.
CHEEK: Thank you very much, a pleasure to be here.
To see examples of complicated language simplified, and add your own, click here.
Pages
While we all can appreciate language that is easy to comprehend, I do not believe we need to limit the use of our vocabulary. "Nefarious" has a plan meaning and unfortunately is an appropriate term for many of the subject matters you cover on your program. Please don’t feel the need to dumb down your language and keep up the great work.
I notice that several people wondered how the Center for Plain Language picked the companies to criticize. We didn't pick them, members of the public did. We ran our first contest for examples of outstanding plain language, and at the same time we asked the public to nominate examples of dreadful language. Our ceremony, at the National Press Club on April 29, mostly honors the winners of the "good" awards. We will give a few of the "bad" awards throughout the evening. We'll be looking for the public to nominate more examples for the bad awards for our program next year.
If anyone wants to see the BlackBerry document that was nominated by a distressed BlackBerry owner, it's here:
HTTP://WWW.BLACKBERRY.COM/GO/LEGALEULA
Enjoy.
Click on the “Next Story†link just above and to the right of the most recent comment. It will take you to a story titled, “Examples: Complicated words clarified.†This is what plain language is all about. How could anyone think that the original is more precise or preferable to the “translations†shown. Studies have shown that plain language saves everyone time and money and doesn’t insult anyone’s intelligence. Plain language actually should sound more intelligent because it takes more skill to write so clearly and concisely.
If the link doesn’t work try: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-plain-langu...
On further thought, I would like to clarify that I realize the point of the organization is to expose these linguistic practices and to help consumers. So I am not necessarily critical of the exposure of Blackberry's language. I only question Ms. Cheek's choice in using Blackberry as her example. I accept the arguments for relatability (because many listeners will now feel the impetus to investigate their own phone companies, which I applaud) and for time constraints on how many examples Ms. Cheek could include. However, in an effort to be transparent, she could have qualified her example simply by stating that Blackberry was one of many in that particular contest. And, further, that these linguistic practices cross boundaries between large and small companies, industries and localities. In doing so, her motivations for singling out one company may not seem so - o what's the word?-nefarious.
Many people already know that I have been treated for 3 disabling conditions since the early 1980s, and for most of that time, I have also worked full-time in increasingly responsible positions, in programs for families who have disabled children. I expected, at the age of 60, to be working still, but without health care access, my physical limitations have increased every year.
In 2009, I worked only 3 weeks of the year, and had an income of less than $2500. My hope that the one-week consulting contracts I accepted with two different firms, would lead to more work were not fulfilled. Instead, I found that I no longer have the stamina or concentration to work long hours, without sleeping every few hours, and that my tolerance for stress and confusion is far below what it used to be. I am no longer able to give my best the work I love. This is a great loss to me, because I still want to work in the field of disabilities.
My therapist and other advisors suggest I apply for Medicaid again, after being denied in 2007, and 2009. For this I need to file my taxes and assemble many kinds of information, as I have done several times before.
The easy part, they tell me, is to take my tax documents to the AARP volunteers at the library, and get them done. I have just four 1099s, and last year’s return, which was completed by my faithful accountant, at a cost of $150. It would be best to avoid taking money from my children for this simple return, I think. So I call in for an appointment, and find that I must go to a library about 10 miles from home.
I know a trip like this will take up my whole day of active time, so I go to bed early, prepare in advance, take everything I need and set out for the library. When I arrive, the librarian tells me I have come to the wrong location, and prints out a map to a center 3 miles away. I find the place, and see that I am now an hour late, but the generous volunteer says she will make me her last case for the day.
So she begins to review the documents I offer, entering the relevant information, and finally tells me that I will owe $143. in self-employment taxes on my $2,335. in income. Fortunately, the Obama relief program will give me $118. so I have only to pay $25. to the Federal Government. In return, the State of Maryland will refund me $38. She wants to know if I would like to have the funds direct deposited, and while we consider this, she looks at her screen. For some reason, the tax program is refusing to file my return on-line. She checks to find the problem and discovers this:
My three weeks of work were completed with two different employers, so I am still a consultant; an independent contractor, as I have been for many years, despite my poor results this year. That means I have to file a Schedule C, which AARP volunteers are not allowed to do. I need to complete the Profit or Loss from Business form that my accountant has always done for me, before I can file the return.
Of course, I think, this is the reason I have already added up the medical expenses, business costs, auto milage and charity donations for this year. Perhaps I can complete the form for myself. I take a look at the printed documents I was given, and find that there are half a dozen things I don’t understand on the basic forms, including this on the Making Work Pay form:
6. Enter $75,000. If the amount is more than $2,193, on line 5,
7. skip line 8;
9. Subtract line 8 from line 4; the printed result is 115.
What does this mean?
Now I remember why it wasn’t too much to have someone who knows what this means to help me communicate with my government!
So I will ask my children to give me $150. for the accountant, to find out if I really owe $143, or $25. or what.
I am a long-time liberal, far more so than any Democratic Party Member. I register independent, since the days of Clinton’s zipper, but usually I do vote with the dems, and have been busy every week for the past two years, promoting health care reform. I even hope that when I finally get to see a doctor I will be able to get back to work again.
There is a big surprise in this endeavor: I see now what the Taxed Enough Already Party means when they come out in work and gardening clothes, to display their ignorance of how the government works, and wants to help them. Despite my higher education and endless reading and going to seminars, I am one of them now.
There are so many programs for poor people, I hear from people who are not poor. If you are living in poverty, or working poor, or having a few bad years, it is very hard to see what the government will do for you. Every day you see what you can no longer do for yourself, and that is all that matters.
What an excellent idea! Linguistic transparency should be an expected service from these large companies. However, I am interested in finding out how this organization decides on which companies' language to monitor. Because I could easily see efforts being made by competing companies to sway the consumer trust in other companies by questioning the transparency of their competition's language. As an example from this interview, the language used by Ms.Cheek about Blackberry contracts suggests subversiveness and necessary deceitful intentions. Mission accomplished at getting me curious about language!
Kai said that they gave Annetta Cheek some samples of materials Marketplace produced – materials that are examples of what they think is clear language. So, it should be difficult to find problematic language. Criticizing “really†and “nefarious†shows the material was quite good. There probably wasn’t much else to criticize.
The people here seem to be missing the point that we, the public, accept unnecessarily complex language in contracts and agreements. The point is that writing can be clear AND precise. Nefarious is not particularly precise. Using such words without solid context does nothing to increase the “national IQ.†The point is to inform and not to obfuscate. When I use that word to describe something, there is no doubt about the problem I’m describing.
Anyone who looks at what the Center for Plain Language could only wish them more success. But don’t just wish, learn about what plain language means. Join with the Center and others in demanding plain language.
Hi Kay,
There is a huge difference in using words, in plural, to obscure the meaning of a sentence or a paragraph and using one less common word in an otherwise perfectly clear sentence. The Center for Plain English should not be the Center for Dumb English or, in other words, be careful what you wish for.
I completely agree with Giom and was prompted to write precisely for the same reason. I listen to the BBC and NPR for several reasons, one of them being that I can hear real language and normal words being used that I use at home with my own teenager, whose vocabulary is significantly larger than that of most my colleagues at work, not to mention his classmates and teachers. This progressive dumbing down of our language is not helped by this constant pandering to the lowest common denominator. While I agree that there is plenty to complain about in the legalese presented to consumers in financial, contractual, and other materials, the plain language movement’s cause is set back when making an issue about things such as Kai’s use of the word “really†in the context of the article mentioned, or the term “nefarious,†which, for the record, is one of the SAT prep words that my 9th grader had on a vocab test, which he already knew. Please do not even consider changing your broadcast style. Those of us who listen appreciate what you have to offer and the manner in which you offer it. We need more expressive use of the language we have, not less.
Pages
