Mea Culpa: measuring a quantity of soldiers

We reported on the prime minister’s attempt to deter a further Russian incursion in Ukraine, saying that Nato was considering a new British offer, “which could see double the amount of military personnel sent to the region…” Thanks to Philip Nalpanis for pointing out that “amount” usually refers to quantities; we meant “number”. While we are here, however, we should also note the use of the flabby “inanimate objects seeing things” construction. We could simply have referred to the offer “to double the number of military personnel sent to the region”.

Contact the Four Tops: We used the American phrase “reached out” a few times last week, as in “The Independent has reached out to [Thandiwe] Newton’s representatives for comment.” As Paul Edwards reminded me, our style is “contacted”. But he headed his email “I’ll be there”, and now I have the Four Tops stuck in my head.

Stuck in the middle: I haven’t complained about “amid” for at least a week, and we had some grating uses of it last week. We reported that on Monday, “wind energy accounted for an average of 49 per cent of the nation’s electricity over the previous 24 hours amid gusts of up to 90mph”. That makes it sound as if the electricity generation was happening while a storm was raging all around, possibly even despite it, rather than “because of” or “thanks to” the gusts.

We also said that pet shops in Hong Kong were being allowed to sell hamsters again “after nearly 2,000 hamsters were culled amid fears of the spread of the coronavirus from the animals”. Again, that should be “because of”.

But I am a positive and cheerful pedant, so let me praise James Moore, who showed us how the word should be used, in his assessment of Michael Gove’s levelling up white paper: “Trouble is, amid all the ballyhoo, and the warm words from people who are willing to give Gove and the government a chance to show what they can do, what some are saying in private is that the secretary of state would be right to have doubts.”

Passing comment: In a book review we said that Walter Chandoha, a cat photographer, had “passed away in 2019”. This is an unnecessary euphemism; our usual style is “died”. In an account of the Stormy Daniels court case we went one step further, referring to a doll called Susan, a haunted object that is said to be “attached to a young girl who tragically passed away in the 1960s”. Not only is that a euphemism, but it tells the reader how they should feel about the death of an unknown girl. I blame Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the government’s chief medical officer, for reinforcing this tendency: whenever he says that some people who catch coronavirus will die, he inserts a “sadly” in front of it.

Put out the fire: “Spark” is a common verb in journalese that means provoke conflict, disaster or even joy. It is a useful metaphor because it is short, but it has been overused, so it is easy to forget its original meaning. In a report of claims about cancers caused by radiation, we reminded readers that “a powerful earthquake in northeast Japan triggered a tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima plant’s cooling systems, which sparked a nuclear meltdown on 11 March 2011”. A nuclear meltdown is hot by definition, but the thing that caused the problem was almost the opposite of a spark: it was a flood of seawater.