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.
New York Times metro editor Nestor Ramos sent out the following on Friday: We are delighted to…
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
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.