Originally Posted by rtdunham
this is a business article. so the distinction matters. it's not enough to be able to mount a technical defense. the goal of good writing is to be clear, and to avoid confusion.
First, this is not a business rag of any sort. Second, the use of the word earnings is rational in this context. It is no worst than somebody saying they are earning a paycheck.
that would have been an unfortunate way to express the information, too.
That may be so, but again this is not a business journal by any means.
Look, I'm an AI fan. That's WHY I care enough to try to coach the writers.
Oh that is so nice of you! You do realize nobody asked for your help, right?
They have technical skills i lack. I have some writing skills they lack. If i can help them become better writers, by better understanding financial terms and by becoming more sensitive to word choices and how they affect clarity, we all win.
The first thing you need to realize is that if the articles presented here became fianacial journal like, Appleinsider would loose a huge portion of its readership. We aren't interested in carefully crafted and often mis leading business news. We are happily focused on being rumor mongers here.
As a side note, based on recent history, the imagined clarity of business communications is questionable at best. Often the goal of the reports are to make stock holders happy. I'm not saying this is wide spread but a clear report means nothing if built upon wishful thinking or deception.
So your argument doesn't negate the fact the wording's unfortunate. When, in a financial article, a reader encounters... "would earn the company $2.8 billion," the expectation is that "earn" is used in the financial sense. Only as a means of unraveling the confusing sentence does the secondary meaning of "earn" apply.
Taken from the standpoint of the layman the secondary meaning is probably what is expected in this forum. Really what do you expect, that everyone here take a accounting cOurse or business 101 before reading the articles? As to clarity I would like to know how a well writen business article would be actually easier for the average reader to digest here.
Any time a reader has to go back and play detective to root out what the writer meant, it's unfortunate. Using "earn" in its non-financial sense, in a financial article, was a poor choice. It'd be better to concede the point, than to defend it. I doubt it was an intentional choice of a confusing word.
That would be all well and good if this was a business trade. It isn't and that is the whole point. What we have is a rumors site posting parts of an article that is written by an analyst based on rumors and guess work. That is not something that you even want to remotely confuse with good business reporting.
all the writer would have had to say was, "would bring..." or "would garner..." and there'd be no confusion.
The writer could say lots of things that is agreed however he needs to be aware of the audience and the context. There is nothing to be gained by making the reporting more business like. In fact there is a lot to loose if people take it seriously. It is far better for Appleinsider to not sound like a journal one would make business decisions from.
I haven't even mentioned that for his sources the writer turned to "a prominent investment baking
In any event I understand your point but believe it is misplaced with respect to Appleinsider. The last thing Appleinsider needs is Wall Street taking its articles seriously. Appleinsider is more about rumors, wishful thinking, forums and some reportage of press releases. It is not the place to go for an indepth researched business report.
I also understand some of the suckage in the reporting here. Some of the writers are obviously new to the craft. On the otherhand I've seen some improve significantly over the years. So your trying to be helpful might be worthwhile, but one shouldn't dwell on the details in a forum thread that is focused on the material being discussed. Suggestions are fine but promotion becomes an issue for the rest of us.