Unjournalism

Natch Watch: the LA Times

Posted on February 11th, 2007 by Mike Keliher

In the newest installment of my ongoing series, I’m picking on the Los Angeles Times.

In a story about “the case of Douglas R. Dowie, the former public relations executive convicted of fraud against the city of Los Angeles and sentenced last week to 3 1/2 years in federal prison,” the subheadline reads:

“About to be imprisoned, ex-PR chief Dowie has a screenplay optioned. It’s a City Hall tale, natch.”

Damn it! I hate that “word.” Now, I know “natch” is in the dictionary, but that doesn’t make it a word (see “ain’t“). More importantly, even if one grants “natch” its undue wordness, actually using it in a written work is the linguistic equivalent of putting orange juice in Crown Royal whisky — which I actually saw a bartender do recently. (What bartender doesn’t know that “I’ll have a Crown and an orange juice” means that I’m ordering two drinks?) That is to say, DON’T DO IT.

Now, I’m well aware that the article’s writer is not even the person who actually wrote “natch” in the subhead. Chances are, that was an editor at the paper. Still, I hope people will start to think twice before pissing off some lonely guy in his basement who has a blog on which he writes about inane things like the use of the “word” natch. Ooh, zing!

Remember, kids: Friends don’t let friends pronounce measure as “may-zher,” nor do those same friends let their amigos use the “word” natch. If your friend insists on saying “natch,” you should just cave in and let them drive home drunk, too.

Note to my readers (both of you): I have modified this post after speaking with the specific person at the Times who I was picking on in the original version of the post. Although I stated I had no qualm with the story’s writer personally — she wasn’t even the person who wrote the word; other people write headlines — the Google search results for her name looked bad. She was bothered by some of the things I wrote, and realizing there was no reason to put up a fight or to truly piss anyone off, I backed off and changed the post.

Two points, though: I’m sure the original version of this post will leave on for eternity, so revising it is probably futile. At least I tried. Second, I won’t back off my quest against the “word” natch. I might be persuaded to feel bad for a person (especially a reporter — I am a PR guy, after all), but I have no mercy for “natch”!