11.07.08

Degreeability

Posted in assorted weird crap, word misuse, write tight at 8:08 am by Bill Brohaugh

Now come post-election reports of a certain VP candidate not knowing that Africa comprises several countries, and is not a country unto itself. I mention this by way of background, because I want to talk about a word used in reporting this claim—which may be true or may be disgruntled exaggeration. The word appears here:

According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked “a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,” in part because she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, and she “didn’t understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.”

I suspect whoever first spoke the word knowledgeability—either Cameron or the source Cameron was quoting—really meant knowledge, given the fact that the examples given were bits of knowledge. Perhaps knowledgeability—the ability to be knowledgeable—was indeed the intended word. I’m skeptical, though, because making such nuanced distinctions seems out of character with certain elements of “news” coverage.

So, I chalk knowledgeability up to verbosity (or verbosability), and then begin to wonder about “a degree of.” What does that mean? I contend that either a candidate has the knowledge or knowledgeability or knowledgeabilitosity to handle the job or not. Why not come out and say it bluntly? The claim is harsh enough to begin with—why try to dance around it with clumsy ballet-shoe phrasings? The candidate, the source or the reporter could have said, lacked “knowledge necessary to be a running mate.”

But, as I said, this claim could be true, or it could be exaggeration or hyperbole. Was the source knowledgeable? Or did the source know?

Permalink