I have issues with the word "issues"

Poststructural Pub
1

Not sure how long this vague use of “issues” to mean (I think) “problems” has been around. Quite a while.

Today I came home and turned on the Golf Channel to watch the lead-up to the President’s Cup matches and was informed there were “weather issues”.

I was informed of this several times in the next few minutes without anyone telling me what the “issues” were.

I could guess there was rain. It turns out there’s thunder and lightning as well. So why not say “there are thunderstorms that will delay the start of today’s play and we’re not sure by how much yet”. They ended up saying that eventually anyway.

2

Sounds golfy to me. Like the hushed delivery of commentators, and the golf clap.

3

I’m sure someone was “efforting” the weather issues.

4

I suppose it could have been worse. They could have said “thunderstorms are a thing.”

5

Television “journalism” is one of the most entertaining things on tv; you only have to listen for about ten minutes of any news broadcast to hear the most absurd uses and abuses of the English language.

6

My particular pet hate is the use of the word “across” to mean … well, anything other than “across”, it seems to me. For instance, news people are forever saying “And we’ll keep you across that story throughout the day”. W T F? It doesn’t mean anything!!! :imp: :swear:

7

They mean a-cross … as in, “We’ll keep you angry with that story throughout the day.” That’s often true enough.

Must be a British innovation; I haven’t heard that one over here.

8

Maybe. We Brits tend to think that ugly neologisms (or new and inappropriate uses of perfectly decent, old words) must be American in origin, but it ain’t necessarily so. :slight_smile:

9

Yeah, Ben, I think maybe you can blame your own for that one. I haven’t heard it either.

“Across” is a sort of poor version of “abreast of”, isn’t it.

10

Or, “the President’s Cup match was thunderstormed”