Here's something petty that really annoys me.
In this mornings Indo we have a story about corrupt civil servant "....a senior clerical officer, was paid a total of ..."
http://www.independent.ie/national-...s-ordered-to-do-community-service-995006.html
To me, the person mentioned in the story is a clerical officer, nothing more, nothing less. In the civil service the grade of clerical officer is a very junior recruitment one. It's the very bottom rung on the corporate ladder, but the journalist tries to make the story more dramatic, and to emphasise us just how corrupt the civil service is, by describing this particular clerical officer as a senior clerical officer, instead of a junior civil servant.
Journalists always seem to describe people as senior, especially their sources or spokesman. For example on the news, we have what are described a senior gardai who are in fact sergeants. The way I see it a basic grade garda is a garda, nothing more and nothing less. He wouldn't like to be referred to as a junior garda and I would agree with this. He's a garda, period.
A detective garda is a detective garda, he's not a senior garda, he's a detective garda. A uniformed sergeant or inspector is a mid ranking garda and a detective sergeants or inspector is a mid ranking detective garda. A superintendent or above is what I would describe as a senior garda.
It always irritates me when I hear the likes of Charlie Bird, in a breathless voice, talking about senior hospital consultants. A hospital consultant is a hospital consultant. It is the top job in the medical field in the hospital. As far as I'm aware no hospital consulant is senior to another, and if they were, Charlie Bird probably wouldn't be aware of the pecking order. Now we have a situation where we have we have no hospital consultants and everyone quoted or referred to becomes a senior hospital consultant.
Putting the word senior before the persons job makes the journalists sources and story sound more authorative and dramatic. Why can't they just call a spade a spade and report the story as it instead of trying to make it sound more important than it is and in the process inflate their own importance and the importance of their sources.
Saturday morning rant over
Murt
In this mornings Indo we have a story about corrupt civil servant "....a senior clerical officer, was paid a total of ..."
http://www.independent.ie/national-...s-ordered-to-do-community-service-995006.html
To me, the person mentioned in the story is a clerical officer, nothing more, nothing less. In the civil service the grade of clerical officer is a very junior recruitment one. It's the very bottom rung on the corporate ladder, but the journalist tries to make the story more dramatic, and to emphasise us just how corrupt the civil service is, by describing this particular clerical officer as a senior clerical officer, instead of a junior civil servant.
Journalists always seem to describe people as senior, especially their sources or spokesman. For example on the news, we have what are described a senior gardai who are in fact sergeants. The way I see it a basic grade garda is a garda, nothing more and nothing less. He wouldn't like to be referred to as a junior garda and I would agree with this. He's a garda, period.
A detective garda is a detective garda, he's not a senior garda, he's a detective garda. A uniformed sergeant or inspector is a mid ranking garda and a detective sergeants or inspector is a mid ranking detective garda. A superintendent or above is what I would describe as a senior garda.
It always irritates me when I hear the likes of Charlie Bird, in a breathless voice, talking about senior hospital consultants. A hospital consultant is a hospital consultant. It is the top job in the medical field in the hospital. As far as I'm aware no hospital consulant is senior to another, and if they were, Charlie Bird probably wouldn't be aware of the pecking order. Now we have a situation where we have we have no hospital consultants and everyone quoted or referred to becomes a senior hospital consultant.
Putting the word senior before the persons job makes the journalists sources and story sound more authorative and dramatic. Why can't they just call a spade a spade and report the story as it instead of trying to make it sound more important than it is and in the process inflate their own importance and the importance of their sources.
Saturday morning rant over
Murt
)