Phillip Blanchard

Phillip Blanchard was in the newspaper business for more than 35 years, most recently as a financial copy editor at the Washington Post. Previously he worked at the Chicago Sun-Times and newspapers in upstate New York. He founded Testy Copy Editors, the online forum, in 1992. Follow him on Twitter: @testycopyeditor. Or email Phillip at blanp@testycopyeditors.org.

Eenie meenie chili beanie: No news was big news for Buffett

By Phillip Blanchard on May 08, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Investing | Banking, Phillip Blanchard

Even with the addition of a hedge fund manager meant to inject additional skepticism into Berkshire Hathaway‘s annual meeting, Warren E. Buffett managed to escape making big news here on Saturday. (New York Times)

Before facing questions from a crowd of more than 30,000, billionaire investor Warren Buffett got a rock star’s treatment Saturday when he was mobbed by fans at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting. (USA Today)

Warren Buffett at the Berkshire Hathaway-owned Borsheim Fine Jewelry. Photo: Alyssa Schukar/The World-Herald

When it comes to making a splash without making news, it’s hard to beat Warren E. Buffett.

Every spring, Buffett, chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., presides over a capitalist love fest in Omaha, Neb., that is much more than the company’s annual meeting. Whether it is “news” is open to debate. “There was no big news at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s annual meeting this past weekend,” Jason Zweig wrote to begin his column in the Wall Street Journal. If so, Zweig might have stopped right there.

Newspapers especially love Buffett and his meeting, not necessarily because he’s been buying newspapers and is upbeat about their future,* but rather because he gives us live business copy on a weekend. Wire editors rejoice at the prospect, as do copy editors, who get to write “Oracle of Omaha”** headlines.

No power will keep us from writing about Buffett. He’s regarded as, among other things, a plain-speaking man of the people. That’s a neat trick for the second-richest man in America, whose company has never paid a dividend and whose Class A stock sells for $165,000 a share. Berkshire Hathaway’s Class A stock has never split because, Buffett says, he likes investors who are in for the long haul. The company’s Class B shares — the creation of which Buffett allowed only reluctantly — are more affordable and have split. That put them in Standard and Poor’s 500-stock index, which for the first time gave Berkshire Hathaway direct influence over the stock market’s fortunes.

When handling stories about the Woodstock for Capitalists, bear in mind that what Buffett says at them is carefully planned to put the wizard in the best possible light. Edit accordingly. You can start by ditching “Woodstock for Capitalists.”

*Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger pointed out that Buffett made an exception to his usual investing habits for newspapers because he likes them. (Associated Press)

**Various sources, including Wikipedia, note that Buffett is known as the “Oracle of Omaha,” and also the “Sage of Omaha” and, relatively rarely, the “Wizard of Omaha.” (I am allowed to look at Wikipedia only because I am a highly trained professional. Before trying it yourself, be certain of your credentials. Material from Wikipedia may be used only when it relates to Wikipedia itself.)

—-

Inside the boardroom: The party is over!

‘Dr. Copper’ Tells Markets the Party’s Over: Albert Edwards

Fund Strategy Investment Committee: The end of the commodity party?

Whatever else may be going on in the markets, it ain’t no “party.” Take the usual steps when considering a “party’s over” headline: contemplate and reject.

—

Beware of Bitcoin: Virtual coin, really hard to describe

By Phillip Blanchard on Apr 22, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard

Beware of bitcoin

Bitcoin* is all the rage. It’s extraordinarily difficult to write about because no one – including its creators – seems to be able to say exactly what it is. That makes it tough to come up with the nut graf**.

This would-be educational video takes a stab at it, but is almost comically confusing.

In essence it’s a virtual currency not unlike the digital currency one might use to get virtual goods or services in online games such as Farmville. (Discovery)

Images from video We Use Coins.

That doesn’t do it. There are apparently enough differences between Bitcoin and Farmville money to render this explanation lame. For one thing, it is said you can use Bitcoin to get real stuff.

It has been a volatile month for Bitcoin, the virtual currency that is based on a mathematic algorithm and can be used to buy everything from maple syrup to pornography. (Wall Street Journal)

Please. Talk about comical.

Whatever else it is, bitcoin has become the financial phenomenon of the moment. (New York Times DealBook)

That’s no nut graf, and unhelpful to boot.

So what is Bitcoin? Damned if I know, but I’m not writing a story about it. If I were, I would at least try to find out, and then use all my powers to write a proper nut graf.

*Capitalized or not? I say yes, at least for now.

** These links are offered for informational for informational purposes only. I can’t endorse them in their entirety.

—

A couple of handouts from the recent American Copy Editors Society conference contain some useful tips.

One includes suggestions on using (or not using) terms like “sequester,” “quantitative easing” and “profit.’ Quibble: make it “0.5 percentage points,” not “percentage point.” All nonzero numbers are plural.

The other approaches jargon from the viewpoint of a business, but still contains good advice despite our lack of mutual interest. Quibbles: Regarding “if it’s appropriate, use “build your business,” read that as “It’s never appropriate to use ‘build your business. That’s jargon in one of its foulest forms.” Regarding “Instead of “improve productivity,” you can come up with something better than “strengthen your business practices.” Sometimes, “improve productivity” is just fine, unless it’s a euphemism for “make your employees work more and don’t hire anyone else.”

—

From “Ask the Editor” at AP Stylebook Online:

Jonathan Kaufman, at Testy Copy Editors on Facebook, writes: “A better answer: Why are you writing in “business speak”?

—

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s unshakable commitment to a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) has impoverished savers, driven investors dangerously out along the risk curve, and baked a ticking time bomb into the federal budget cake. (Huffington Post)

In November 2007, as the housing market was turning around and lenders were scrambling get rid of a ticking time bomb before it blew up in their face, Citadel injected $2.6 billion into E-Trade and bought a portfolio of souring mortgage loans, WSJ reported. (Forbes)

There are many more. The cliché is outdated. Everyone who watches television knows that a “time bomb” has a digital display, and is silent.

Plagiarism sins: Who you calling ‘strident’?

By Phillip Blanchard on Apr 09, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard

By Flickr user jobadge

Although some strident voices clamor for a zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism — termination at first blush — that is not the norm. (Telling the Truth and Nothing But)

The National Summit on Plagiarism and Fabrication, held during the recent annual conference of the American Copy Editors Society, took care of the “fabrication” part quickly, without debate. No tolerance, no excuses. Fabulists are to be tossed out without mercy. Surprisingly, though, that wasn’t the case with plagiarism. Panelists made a distinction between blatant and subtle theft that can’t stand up to moral judgment.

Norm Lewis of the University of Florida, whose doctoral dissertation was a primary source for the e-book written for the summit, said plagiarism is “not always our field’s worst offense.” He cited stories like the buildup to the war in Iraq as examples of things we should be more worried about.

Lewis (with whom I worked at the Washington Post and whom I like, respect and admire) seems to be drawing from a list of sins, ranked in some order of perversity. Really. It’s hard to imagine putting off dealing with a plagiarist because something big is happening. I oversimplify Norm’s argument, but that’s what it comes down to.

At the risk of seeming loud, harsh, grating, or shrill, I call for the death penalty in every case of plagiarism. “There are no mitigating circumstances for plagiarism,” Marcus Brauchli was quoted by Michael Calderone as saying when he was executive editor of the Washington Post, and he was right. (He nonetheless must have found such circumstances in at least two cases in which he “punished” plagiarists with three-month suspensions.)

The response to plagiarism should be simple: You get caught, you get fired. This rule is easy to understand and easy to enforce.

But at news organizations with written policies on plagiarism, it doesn’t seem to be so simple. Penalties can include “termination,” but lesser punishments are often imposed.

In March 2011, a Washington Post reporter lifted material from an Arizona newspaper and got caught. Sari Horwitz has Pulitzer Prizes on her résumé, so she wasn’t fired. She was suspended for three months.

In January of this year, another Post reporter, William Booth, got caught plagiarizing from a scholarly journal. He was apparently also suspended for three months, and it was suggested that as further punishment, he would be denied a plum foreign posting. But he still has a job.

Compare Horwitz and Booth with Michael J. Tobin, a reporter for the South Portland-Cape Elizabeth (Maine) Sentry. In February 2012, Tobin stole from stories in two competing newspapers. Not having any Pulitzers, he was fired almost immediately.

Then there are the plagiarists you never hear about: the ones whose thefts are discovered before publication. “Privacy concerns, due process and other legal considerations will make any organization cautious about labeling someone a thief when the material has not yet been published,” the plagiarism panel’s e-book says. But that warning seems to address the question of whether to publicize such a case. There is nothing to stop a news organization from booting a plagiarist regardless of when a transgression is discovered.

In 2006, I caught a reporter lifting his lede from a company website. I reported the transgression to the slot on duty, to the copy-desk chief, and then to the deputy department editor. I was asked to consult with the assigning editor, who asked the reporter to refashion the lede. I also consulted with the reporter, who offered no explanation.

I told the deputy that I thought the plagiarism was serious and required more than a rewrite, and was told firmly that it was none of my business.

The story was published with a new lede, although the writer loved the purloined copy so much, he insisted on using it deeper in the story, attributed to the website.

(I can’t provide more detail, because of my insider role in the case; although I did not sign a nondisclosure agreement, I do have a sense of honor, even among thieves. Anyhow, naming names now could cause me trouble that I really don’t need. Readers will have to trust me on this. But the reporter knows I know, and I never forget. Perhaps I can tell more if and when the reporter is nailed for plagiarism that makes it into print.)

I resolved that the next time I found plagiarism, I would go directly to the executive editor and state firmly what had to be done. It never happened, but that’s my recommendation to any copy editor in a similar situation: Fully document the plagiarism and your role in finding it. Go directly to the top so minor managers don’t have the chance contain the repercussions. Do not threaten to leak the case to other media, although it can’t hurt to leave the impression that you might.

If no one else is going to play hardball, it’s up to us.

Facing down the plagiarists: Not too late for ACES 2013

By Phillip Blanchard on Mar 22, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard, Regional and online workshops

The annual American Copy Editors conference runs April 4-6 in St. Louis. This gathering is the pretty much the only place to go if you are an editor looking to expand your knowledge and sharpen your skills. It’s late, but you can still register.

The highlight of the conference this year is the National Summit on Plagiarism and Fabrication, on the morning of April 5. A committee comprising editors, academics, and representatives of various news organization and trade groups (but not, for some reason, me.) The committee has prepared a report that will be released at the summit. As far as I know, it will be the only comprehensive review of the subject ever to be compiled by people who know anything useful about it. The committee is headed by William G. Connolly, a retired New York Times editor who for years has offered at ACES conferences a presentation on “Jimmy’s World,” the 1980 story that Janet Cooke of the Washington Post made up.

The summit is free, but you have to register for it.

Meanwhile, I can recommend some of the other sessions scheduled for the conference:

Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) for Journalists. Who knows? It might be useful.
Finance, Banking and Markets: From Jargon into English. Covers terminology that often mystifies financial reporters, as evidenced by the stories they write. This would also be good for general reporters, who might be inclined to parrot jargon they see in the money pages.
Tiny Acts of Elegance: Editing Like a Writer, with Bill Walsh of the Washington Post. Bill’s sessions are always useful. (Plug: His new book, “Yes, I Could Care Less: How to Be a Language Snob Without Being a Jerk,” will be published soon.)
Afraid of Math? Take a Number. It’s really all arithmetic in the financial pages, anyhow. With Rich Holden of the Dow News Fund.

There are several sessions that appear to be must-avoids, topped by something called “BizSpeak Bursting with Strunk & White.” This isn’t for news people: “If you work in the corporate world — perhaps in a multichannel platform — and your core constituency leverages its resources in matrixing a communications strategy that has too many moving parts, Strunk and White can help you peel the onion and incorporate best practices.” That sentence is a joke, or at least I think it is. But the session description continues: “The Elements of Style” is only about 100 pages long and nearly 100 years old, but it’s full of tips for writers and editors in the digital age who want to keep it short and keep it simple.” If the session is really about neophytes embracing Strunk & White, I’m not laughing. Smart editors know that “The Elements of Style” is a very dangerous book in the wrong hands. (I’ve said this before.)

March Madness and the overstated employee productivity issue

By Phillip Blanchard on Mar 20, 2013 in Basics, Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard, Sports

John L. Robinson, and no doubt others, raised the annual alarm for the people-sit-around-the-office-watching-basketball story, which, just like PNC Wealth Management’s annual Twelve Days of Christmas price list, smart editors have learned to spike on sight.

Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the euphemistically self-described “global outplacement firm,” pumps out its March Madness “survey” every spring before the NCAA basketball tournament. This year, it says workers on average will waste three hours a day as they follow the tournament on the clock. The firm “estimates that March Madness will cost American companies at least $134 million in ‘lost wages’ over the first two days of the Tournament,” based on a tortured calculation whose detailed description in a press release masks the highly speculative nature of the number.

The nifty part of the announcement, though, is that although these millions of slothful workers will be watching games when there is work to be done, it really won’t cost their employers anything after all.

“’At the end of the day [sic], March Madness will not even register as a blip in the overall economy. Sequestration is going to have a far bigger impact. Will March Madness even have an effect on a company’s bottom line? Not at all,’ said John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.”

Jimmy Kimmel's cousin Micki Marseglia explains why Colorado seems like a winner. (Hint: Rocky Road ice cream)

Wait. You can’t have it both ways. If the basketball-watching costs companies $134 million, it might not affect bottom lines much, but it will affect them. Money, even a relatively small sum, has to come from somewhere. Or is this more imaginary money, like the figures cited when assessing the “economic impact” of Super Bowls or political conventions on host cities?

Surely someone called Challenger, Gray & Christmas on this. I’ll send a fine cigar to the first person who writes me and shows me where.

—-

He [Patrick Jankowski of the Greater Houston Partnership] says the key is managed growth and staying hungry, which is where Custom Rubber Products finds itself — growing slowly and anxious for the future. (KTRK-TV)

Nearly eight years after being released from prison, Martha Stewart finds herself again in a legal pickle. (New York Post)*

Lee Kai-fu is one of China’s most successful businessmen. Now he finds himself in political hot water. (The Atlantic)

You might or might not be surprised how often we write about people, companies and even entire nations that seem to wake up confused about where they are. Then, presumably after composing themselves, they find themselves somewhere, as though they were magically transported to their puzzled states from someplace more familiar.

When you’re editing stories that asserts that so-and-so “finds herself,” you might let it pass without a thought. But if you contemplate the hackneyed phrase long enough, you might realize that its use is not only a cliché, it’s also ridiculous and stupid.

You might think that almost always, you can drop “finds himself” and replace it with “is.” You’d be right.

* It’s usually not a good idea to use a New York Post story as an example. It’s OK here because I’m using a Post story as a bad example.

More from Kimmel’s cousin Micki:

The Twitterverse obsession: Tweet this, pal

By Phillip Blanchard on Mar 13, 2013 in Basics, Beats, Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard

Journalists love Twitter. The only thing they love more than tweeting themselves is citing the “Twitterverse” in their stories.

“One of the rumors rumbling through the Twitterverse is Apple Inc. could announce a stock-split at its shareholder meeting tomorrow,” the Wall Street Journal’s Steven Russolillo wrote on Feb. 26. (It didn’t.)

“Yahoo’s leaked edict under CEO Marissa Mayer that calls remote workers back to the office lit the Twitterverse on fire,” the Associated Press reported March 5.

Twitter this, Twitter that. All too often, remarks made by one “newsmaker” or another on Twitter are used as the obligatory quotes in news stories, making it unnecessary for reporters to actually talk to anyone.

The damage here, beyond that to the journalistic work ethic, is that we mislead people about the importance of Twitter, and exclude the significant majority of readers who have nothing to do with Twitter.

Only about 15 percent of online adults in the U.S. are “on” Twitter, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. (There are no reliable estimates of how many of those online adults are journalists, but I can say with scientific certainty that it’s a lot.)

Pew also has found that 20 percent of American adults, for various reasons, don’t use the Internet at all. So it’s a pretty rare slice of the country that operates in the Twitterverse.

And Pew, which seems a bit obsessed with Twitter, has concluded that the views expressed on Twitter overall conflict with opinion as measured by surveys of the general population. Imagine that!

It’s also true that many people, especially the famous or near-famous, don’t write their own posts on social media. Quoting them can be fraudulent, even if it’s unintentional.

There are millions of people who will respond with blank stares at the mention of “Twitter.” You can bet that a lot of them are your readers.

Following a carefully selected, limited number of Twitter feeds can be valuable to journalists. But they run the risk of total immersion in the Twitterverse, which can, and does, skew their worldviews and encourage laziness.

Editors should challenge excessive and gratuitous references to Twitter and to specific tweets. Has the writer confirmed the identity of the tweeter? Can we get him on the phone? Can we get anyone on the phone to talk about anything? Can we – deep breath – get out of the office and talk to someone in person?

––––

The way that we pay for things has changed markedly in the last decade. (BBC News)

To those critics, this was a jarring case of the lengths colleges and teams will go to produce revenue, of the way that everything seems to be for sale now in sports — and to anyone with enough cash. (New York Times)

He said, rather, that the town is trying to better coordinate the way that it provides cemetery services. (Milford Daily News)

You can’t always use “how” instead of “the way that,” but you almost always can. Why not do it?

Back to basics: Getting it right in business reporting

By Phillip Blanchard on Feb 25, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard

H.J. Heinz Thursday said it has entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an investment consortium comprised of Berkshire Hathaway and 3G Capital. (Wall Street Journal)

That’s how the Journal reported the Heinz deal early on. It was obvious from the headline and story, though, that it wasn’t a proposed “merger” at all. Berkshire Hathaway and 3G were buying Heinz. The Journal quickly dropped reference to a “merger” in updated stories. (I’m not going to get into “comprised of”; others have covered that quite nicely.)

An acquisition is not a merger, at least usually. The useful “Financial Writer’s Stylebook” defines “merger”: “When two companies combine to form a new company, and the shareholders of each company own about 50 percent of the new company. Rarely, if ever are there true mergers, although companies will announce takeovers as ‘mergers’” In fairness, in its initial confirmation of the deal and announcement of a press conference, Heinz itself did not use the word “merger.”

Just about everybody else got it right, even the Associated Press, whose stylebook says: “Few business combinations are truly a merger of equals, so we need to be precise and sparing in the use of the word “merger.” It is not a synonym for an acquisition or takeover, which should be the preferred descriptive used in most of our stories.”

The Journal stylebook is oddly silent on “merger.”

Even when the big papers and wire services use the right term, “merger” tends to show up in headlines. Knock that off.

———

J.C. Penny wasn’t just the most interesting retailer of 2012, it was one of the most interesting companies, period. (Forbes)

It was also one of the most misspelled.

Come on. This is a rookie mistake that even most rookies wouldn’t make. Again: If you think you know how to spell something, look it up.

(“Credits,” from top: ValueWalk, Financial Post, [Jackson, Miss.] Clarion-Ledger. The art on the Clarion-Ledger page might have been a clue to the proper spelling. Another time, I might get into “J.C. Penney” vs. JC Penney vs. JCPenney, but don’t hold your breath.)

———

Microsoft celebrated “amazing” response to its latest model of the Surface over the weekend, with the announcement that the tablet’s 128 GB model had sold out online and in stores across the country. … That led to plenty of chatter that Microsoft may have orchestrated a sellout by limiting the number of units it sent out into stores. (Washington Post)

Referring to “chatter” is almost always a bad idea. If you insist on doing it, it’s always mandatory to say who’s doing the chattering, or at least provide a small hint.

The story provides a single reference, an article by Brian Proffitt of ReadWrite, who cited an anonymous blog commenter. That does not qualify as “plenty of chatter.”

Editors have to get their heads out of Webster’s New World and think a little bit about what they’re reading. While this story suggests skullduggery by Microsoft, it does not include anything — not even a “no comment” — from the company in response to the suggestion. It does quote a Microsoft blog post that doesn’t directly address the story’s point.

Repeating a rumor is not reporting. It would be interesting to know if Microsoft planned for a “shortage” of Surface tablets. Finding the truth requires sources, of which this story has none.

Those who can’t, teach

By Phillip Blanchard on Feb 11, 2013 in Best Practices, Career tips, Featured

The Poynter Institute — which, as “a school dedicated to teaching and inspiring journalists and media leaders,” brings us the wisdom of such luminaries as Roy Peter Clark* and Al Tomkins,** — provides a textbook example of less-than-best practices in its recent report on NBC’s decision to close the hyperlocal-news project EveryBlock.

MediaWire, Poynter’s comparatively lame replacement for Jim Romenesko’s media blog, corresponded with Vivian Schiller, an NBC functionary. EveryBlock “wasn’t a strategic fit with our growth strategy and — like most hyperlocal businesses — was struggling with the business model,” MediaWire quoted her as saying, without explaining what she might have meant or why NBC bought EveryBlock in the first place.

Then, Jeff Sonderman writes:

I asked Schiller about the questions many are raising online — why not turn over EveryBlock to another operator or give supporters a chance to keep it going?

Keep Calm but Answer the Question Good question, Jeff.

She answered: “I understand that the EveryBlock community is disappointed. So are we. We looked at various options to keep this going, but none of them were viable. It was a tough call to make.”

That was it. If Jeff emailed Vivian back and asked her to please answer the damn question, he didn’t tell us about it.

No one can force anyone to answer a question, of course. But that doesn’t mean you should run a non-answer, especially without calling bullshit.

Editor! Stat! If you don’t challenge this stuff, who will?

(Aside: Everything I know about EveryBlock I learned in the past week, but I can conclude that it didn’t know how to handle “social media.”)

* My view of Clark may be surmised by reading the top of a recent “how to” on the Poynter site.

** Tomkins used to write “Al”’s Morning Meeting, which Testy Copy Editors cheerfully derided for what seemed like years. I doubt that we had anything to do with the Morning Meeting’s demise.

————

“I don’t think Microsoft is going to run Dell at any time or have a dispositive say in what Dell does,” said one source familiar with Microsoft’s thinking, who asked not to be named. (Reuters)

“[Michael Froman] is inclined to retain his White House portfolio,” said one source familiar with his thinking. (Reuters again)

First, companies don’t think. Second, only one “source” is familiar with Michael Froman’s thinking, which kind of blows away the anonymity thing. (If the “source” isn’t Froman, the quote is a lie.) “That’s acceptable shorthand,” you protest? No, it’s lazy, misleading and totally unacceptable.

————

“Every day, you get a different freshness and taste for my gourmet palette. It’s really a nice surprise every day,” said [Joe] Snowberger. (WTLV/WJXX)

Does this qualify as a “style tip?” No. Choosing the wrong word is a bonehead mistake that can be avoided by being well-read or by consulting a dictionary — which, despite the apparent aspirations of AP, @apstylebook is not. In recent years, AP has clogged the Stylebook with entries like this, presumably to pump up sales with each annual edition. That has made the book bloated, cumbersome and increasingly irrelevant. There. I said it.

————

Really rich: The false title “billionaire” has lost its oomph, and yet there are no trillionaires yet as far as we know. Luckily there’s another word available: “zillionaire.” Webster’s New World, which sniffs “informal,” defines a zillionaire as “a person thought to have wealth so great it cannot be measured.” Although “zillionaires” looks like it belongs in a cartoon, it’s the perfect word for describing, say, Scrooge McDuck or Warren Buffett. Too jocular? Save your gravitas for the important stuff, like everything else I write about here.

Weasel word for the ages

By Phillip Blanchard on Jan 30, 2013 in Best Practices, Featured, Phillip Blanchard

In October, Dell announced advanced products in servers, data storage and computer networking. It faces tough competition in these areas, however, from Hewlett-Packard, I.B.M. and Oracle. (New York Times DealBook)

“Without admitting or denying” were the weasel words of 2011. In a fair fight, “however” would take the singular crown any year.*

However Dictionary There’s no reason to be a slave to the dictionary, but it really is helpful once in a while. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, the “official” dictionary of AP and just about everyone else in the business, reports that “however,” as it is most commonly used in news stories, would mean “nevertheless; yet; in spite of that; all the same.” It implies a conflict with what came before. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which the rest of the world uses, better defines this sense of the word: “in spite of that : on the other hand.”

In the DealBook report on Dell excerpted above, nothing about the second sentence conflicts with the company’s product announcement. It’s true that Dell has “tough competition,” but that does not belie the company’s product line. Of course Dell has competition. Drop the “however,” and the sentence works better.

Test Business Copy Editors Phillip Blanchard Let’s stick with DealBook. (Sorry, DealBook. You’re no worse than anyone else.)

Avis paid $12.25 a share in cash, a 49 percent premium over the closing price of Zipcar on Monday. (The price, however, is well below Zipcar’s value in April 2011, when it went public at $18 a share.) (1/2/13)

No conflict there. Why would there be any reason, offhand, to think that the current share price is below the IPO price? Drop the “however,” and the sentence works better.

Mr. Guo spearheaded a move last April that more than doubled the amount of Chinese shares that foreign investors could own, increasing the quota for so-called qualified foreign institutional investors to $80 billion from $30 billion.

However, by the end of December, only $37.4 billion of that quota had been actually [**] allocated to investors, spread among 169 banks, brokerage firms and other financial institutions, according to a statement released Friday by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. (1/14/13)

Who said that allowing foreign investors to own $80 billion in Chinese shares meant that they would do so? Welcoming investors is no guarantee of getting them. Drop the “however,” and the sentence works better.

Ms. White, 65, is expected to receive broad support. But she could face questions about her command of arcane financial minutiae. She was a director of the Nasdaq stock market, but has otherwise built her career on the law-and-order side of the securities industry.

People close to the S.E.C. note, however, that her husband, John W. White, is a veteran of the agency. From 2006 through 2008, he was head of the S.E.C.’s division of corporation finance, which oversees public companies’ disclosures and reporting. (1/24/13)

This one implies a conflict that does not exist. Why should Mary Jo White’s husband’s résumé have anything to do with her qualifications to become chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission? If for some reason the writers thought it was important to say what John White once did for a living, fine. But don’t let them validate that decision with
“however.”

It should now be obvious that, more often than not, “however” is not only unnecessary, but also misleading. Keep your eyes open and act accordingly. When you can drop “however,” do it. (Same goes for “but.”)

—-

* “Oh God, a pet peeve,” you may protest. No, it isn’t. This is intended only as a corrective to sloppy usage I hoped would fade with time, but hasn’t.

** It should go without saying that “actually” can disappear, too.