Brian Workman wrote: >OK this is a bit pedantic, but one of my pet peeves is seeing junk like this >in an official press release. It should say "700-degree _temperatures_". [snip] >The folks at NASA who write this stuff ought to know better. Writing like >this misleads the public and fosters erroneous concepts. > >Sorry for ranting but I feel much better now. Hi Brian, I'll jump in on behalf of the person at NASA who wrote the release. I'd wager the word, heat, was chosen for a couple of reasons. Press releases are typically written using conversational language that meets the needs of radio and television news media. If it can be said using a one-syllable word, the one-syllable word gets the nod. Also, time being such a precious resource, each word needs to paint a picture. Heat, is more evocative of the extreme conditions near Mercury than the word, temperature. Journalists must choose between the technically correct and the evocative, every day. The good newspeople use words that add more as pictures than they lose in technical accuracy. A well written press release takes this reality of mass media into account. A good public information officer (PIO) writes in a style that suffers minimal editing at the hands of the media. This approach gives the PIO a fighting chance at preserve accuracy in the story the public gets. When NASA issues a press release, they do so knowing some of the writing may not be strictly accurate. But their version is more accurate than the version a local reporter would produce from a formally written, technically accurate release. That said, I encourage you to share your comments with NASA's public information office. They should appreciate the feedback and you may inspire them to work that much harder to preserve accuracy while writing to meet the constraints of mass news media. Regards, Bill in Flagstaff -- See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please send personal replies to the author, not the list.