Readers' Ombudsman: In anyone's language, this has to count as a victory for our readers

Published on Sunday 21 December 2008 20:47

ONE of the main reasons for starting this column was to establish a real, open dialogue with readers. However, very often when dealing with complaints, I seem to be simply explaining why things cannot change, or why we do not think they should change, and frankly that gets a bit depressing.

So when we are going to change something as a result of readers contacting me, I get disproportionately pleased. So, drum roll please, ready the doves, we are about to change something as a result of readers writing in.

It may not be the biggest issue surrounding the paper but, for me, it shows that we are genuinely willing to listen. I received a number of letters from readers on the subject, and one from Alasdair Allan, the MSP for the Western Isles. He wrote: "I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are readers of The Scotsman. They have pointed out that The Scotsman TV listings do not include listings for BBC Alba, the new Scottish Gaelic digital television channel, and they ask if this is something you could look at including within the paper?"

The answer is yes, we shall be including them shortly. "Ah ha," I hear some of you say, "This was not a victory for reader power at all, but the craven Scotsman decided to shift only when power and influence lent weight to the argument."

And I hear others say; "Is that it? You are going to change TV listings – so what?"

Well, the answer is it is important to many of our readers. Also, I get the feeling that the people involved see it as a significant step for the progress of the language. They think that now the BBC has agreed to increase its coverage in Gaelic that the national newspaper of Scotland should also acknowledge the strides taken and add its weight to firmly establish what they see as a milestone in the campaign to popularise the language.

And as I said at the outset it is good to see something positive and concrete come out of communication between readers and this newspaper.

THERE is no doubt words can be fashionable and enjoy greater usage than they could normally expect, and that sometimes, during this spell in the sun, their meaning can alter. By that, I mean that when words have several meanings, a lesser-known meaning becomes the one they are best known for. Perhaps I should move on to an example.

Jenny Martin writes: "I have been increasingly irritated recently by the misuse in the media generally, and in your august newspaper, of the word 'enormity'. Brian Monteith uses it under the heading of 'Ignorance is no Defence', writing about Michael Martin, as follows: 'He made himself look completely out of his depth – a man not up to the enormity of his job'. Chambers dictionary defines the word as: 'A great crime; great wickedness; outrage; immenseness or vastness; iniquity; abnormality', and I have always understood it in that sense. I don't think this is what Mr Monteith means. Please ask him to consult his thesaurus again."

Collins gives a similar definition: "1. the quality or character of extreme wickedness, 2. an act of great wickedness, atrocity, 3. vastness of size or extent."

So both dictionaries give its primary meaning, (I'm taking that as the one they list first) as wickedness, but also a secondary meaning as vastness. I think there is no doubt this was the meaning Brian Monteith was seeking to give.

Would the majority of readers have assumed the "extreme wickedness" definition? Even if they did, the context would surely lead them to the secondary definition.

Anyway, I do believe this is one of those words that many people would now use to mean its secondary definition – ie, vastness or immenseness. And under the dictionary definitions, there was nothing wrong in using it in that context.

&#149 Contact Ian Stewart on 0131 620 8633, at [e-mail] or at 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AS.