In all fairness, he didn't say anything about spelling...

"A total of"

This is a phrase that can usually be eliminated. If you own (a total of) four pairs of shoes, it is assumed you mean that to be the total number.

Now, I can see how someone might quibble with this, seeing as how "Rick owns 1 acre of land" is factual even if Rick owns 50,000 acres of land...but how often does someone say that?

NO!

People are hyphenating everything these days.

"It ranks number one in celebrity men’s brands for the four-weeks tracked."

No! Four-weeks? No. All I have to say is no.

A prime example of the energy-zapping passive voice

In an average week, TV is being watched by about 43 million in this audience and radio is being listened to by 37 million.

Nooooooooooes!

Let's recast that and put some oomph back in:

In an average week, about 43 million in this audience watch TV, and about 37 million listen to radio.

-------

On a related note, OMG, I'm sorry for never posting anymore. I really want to try harder, as I continue to see "good" examples of terrible offenses daily.

A quick redundancy to kick off the weekend

"...at some point in the future."

How about just "at some point"? It being the future is implied, yes?

What? Do they not embroider punctuation?

Because wait, whose Britney bitch is it, exactly?

I Propose

To eliminate the following phrases from our paper:

- "Case in point:..."
- "...for the (fashionable/celebrity/eco-friendly etc.) set"
- "de rigeur"
- "To wit,..."
- Any instance of calling someone a "social" instead of a socialite. Because huh?