I’ve just been reading a report from a major charity that should know better, and have come across the word “meaningful” twice in one sentence.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to use it once may be regarded as unfortunate. To use it twice looks like carelessness.
“Meaningful” is one of those words I despise, because (in the way it is generally used in charity writing) it is, well, meaningless.
This particular example talked about meaningful dialogue leading to meaningful action. What’s the alternative – nonsensical dialogue leading to futile action, maybe?
A few more pet hates
- Real (again, what’s the alternative? Imaginary? “Very real” is even worse)
- Robust (and please, please don’t let the next word be “framework”)
- Raft (as in “a raft of measures”, often constructed from a number of “key planks”)
- Inclusive (a vital idea, and sometimes a necessary word, but one in such common currency it’s become as devalued as the Icelandic krona. Isn’t every charity inclusive?)
These words set alarm bells ringing, because they often signal a sentence that doesn’t actually mean much.
It’s too easy to slip into this sort of vocabulary. After all, other charities do it in their copywriting. As a result, our writing and editing can appear strangely naked without it.
But anyone can trot out a string of cliches that sound impressive, while saying little. It’s much harder to say something substantial in plain, direct words. But if you can, it’s much more, uh, meaningful.
And charities need that in their writing more than anything.
