Jim Ledbetter of Fortune writes on its Browser technology blog about CNBC‘s slogan and wonders whether the business news cable network is inviting a lawsuit.
“Perhaps we are on the crest of a new semantic wave, but does CNBC – a division of General Electric – really want to refer to its coverage as ‘actionable’? Every dictionary I have consulted uses as the primary definition for ‘actionable’ some variation of ‘providing grounds for a lawsuit.’ In fact, I can find only one dictionary that even includes a definition akin to the one I assume CNBC intends, i.e., leading to an action, or capable of being acted upon.
“I suppose this is nitpicking, but as an editor it is my job to spot and (I hope!) weed out unintended ambiguities. And I’m hardly alone in insisting that, really, the legal meaning is the only meaning of the word actionable, and all other uses are unfortunate corporate malapropisms.”
Read more here.
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…
The Financial Times has hired Barbara Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels. She will start…
CNBC.com deputy technology editor Todd Haselton is leaving the news organization for a job at The Verge.…
Note from CNBC Business News senior vice president Dan Colarusso: After more than 27 years…
Members of the CoinDesk editorial team have sent a letter to the CEO of its…
View Comments
I could debate Jim over "Mad Money" and "The Big Idea" being "actionable" shows because one could easily take the advice or guidance given and do something almost immediately.
I am not sure running ads can devalue the news products. They can live side by side without harming each other. But yes there is a possibility of influence.