What I find intolerable…

…is people who go on the radio and say ‘interweb’.  And they don’t say it because they are stupid.  Though they are stupid, of course, but not stupid-stupid where they think ‘interweb’ is a real word; I mean they are stupid enough (yes, Jools Holland included) to imagine that they are being both original and funny, in creating a portmanteau (by collapsing two expressions into one).  Ha, bloody ha, I went.  Is this what license payers are paying for?  (That was a rhetorical question, because I know the answer already: ‘Yes, indeed, my friend, it is part of the service we must all fork out for’.)  If these so-called presenters wanted to be a bit more original, they could at least have said ‘World Wide Net’.  But then, why bother?  That would be NOT FUNNY TOO.  Hanging’s too good for ’em, I say.  So let’s bring back drawing, quartering and being made to listen to an infinite tape loop of James Blunt singing ‘You’re Beautiful’.  After each line, they will be required to shout the word ‘Interweb’, like so:  ‘My life is perfect (Interweb!) / Dee diddly dum (Interweb!) / I saw you on the subway (Interweb!) / With a brand new chum (Interweb!)  / You’re beeyootifu-ul (Interweb!) You’re beeyootif-ul, woo, woo, woo-hoo (Interweb!) etc. And so on until, through a process of Pavlovian conditioning they will learn ro mend their ways and never want to say ‘Interweb’ again, as they mount the gallows.  It’s the only language they’ll understand.  (Apart from English.)

4 responses to “What I find intolerable…

  1. …All of which reminds me, I wrote a draft post ages ago about people on the wireless and podcasts who say ‘So’ at the start of their responses to questions in an attempt to sound profound. Will go and dig it out now!

  2. Gets me too every time John Humphries and colleagues, on resuming the studio-anchor role following a recorded report make this lip-smacky noise before speaking, a bit like half a ‘tut-tut’. It is wholly uncalled for, and steps should be taken.

    And as for that Jenni Murray on Woman’s Hour, she makes this funny whinnying snort noise at the start of a question when interviewing guests, usually when getting a bit excited. But that might just be a speech ompuddibob.

    There is always the ‘Um Lady’, too, who appears daily on WH at about 10:12. This is female guest with a novel way of doing or thinking or selling something, and a strong bunch of opinions, but who isn’t used to doing radio and so ‘ums’ and ‘ers’ it until your teeth crawl.

  3. A pet hate for me is people who say ‘as it were’ in an attempt to endow their comment with a sense of grandeur that it is otherwise sadly lacking. Tricky Dicky Dawkins is a repeat offender.

    In other news, when I was at school we managed to convince our maths teacher that the internet was, in actual fact, called the interweb. We met his vague remonstrances with stern words to the effect that ‘it must be the interweb, sir, otherwise why would they call it the World Wide Web?’ It was funny at the time, but then again this was some 10 years ago, and I was 14.

  4. Lol! Thanks for post. Hadn’t noticed Dicky Dawkins saying ‘as it were…’; I like Dawkins’ books but agree with your objection. Maybe it’s something posh boys are taught at Oxbridge as part of their ruling-the-land curriculum.?

    What I also hate on the Today program is the way, when whichever anchorman/woman on duty introduces a story and hands over to the relevant, specialist BBC journalist (business, foreign or whatever). Suddenly the Reithian values of formal English usage are dropped. Anchor person *always* starts with a question: ‘So does this spell the end for Glasgow Rangers? / Greece in the Euro? / quantitative easing?” etc; specialist journo *always* (assuming they agree), starts their reply with ‘Yeah…’

    Steps should be taken, I say…
    Cheers…

Leave a reply to fitz Cancel reply