Overuse and misuse of the verb “to see” are spreading like a pandemic through much of the U.S. and British media. The habit is more than just ugly and unnecessary; it betrays a sloppiness of thinking that is dangerous among journalists, who should be masters of succinct and clear expression.
How often do U.S. broadcast reports begin with a phrase like: “Yesterday saw the most violence in Afghanistan that we have seen so far this year.”? Translation: “Yesterday was the most violent day in Afghanistan so far this year.”
The following gem was delivered by a Fox News business reporter in mid-October: “The figures we’ll see for manufacturing production are unlikely to be as strong as we were expecting to see. We’ll have to see what we see there.”
Translation: “Figures for manufacturing production are likely to be weaker than expected.”
The ubiquitous phrase, “We’ll have to see what happens,” and its variants should be banned from American TV and radio. As long as we survive with our senses intact, we have no choice but to see what happens, and this irritating cliché adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge.
The misuse of “see” is not just bad style; its imprecision can obscure the meaning of a sentence. The Economist recently wrote of “the frenzied economic growth that saw the state’s [Nevada’s] population double between 1990 and 2007,” leaving it unclear whether the economic growth caused the population growth or vice versa – or whether the two just happened at the same time.
The writer probably meant that the frenzied pace of economic growth drew a lot more people to Nevada, as the word “saw” often seems to be used to suggest an underlying causal connection. Thus a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph of London recently wrote:
The economic crisis saw the authority of Brussels seriously weakened as governments took unilateral action to save their countries’ banks, car companies and jobs.
This presumably means: “The economic crisis seriously weakened the authority of Brussels as governments…” although it could mean just that the weakening coincided with the economic crisis.
“See” and “saw,” particularly when followed by a passive verb, as above, often generate long-winded vagueness instead of clarity and precision. Describing climate change negotiations in October, the Financial Times reported:
Instead of demanding the transfer of intellectual property, developing countries are now willing to discuss collaborating on the development of low-carbon technologies. Such a scenario would see rich world companies encouraged to co-develop new technology with developing country partners.
Apart from the absurdity of a scenario “seeing” anything, the second sentence contains no information that is not in the first sentence, other than that rich-world companies would be encouraged to join in the process. This could be conveyed by adding “…with rich-world companies encouraged to participate” to the first sentence, cutting the verbiage from 17 words to seven. But the main problem is that that the writer’s formulation – “see” followed by the passive verb – avoids any explanation of who or what would encourage the companies to participate.
Financial Times writers are frequent offenders in perpetrating this imprecise, ungainly, and usually unnecessary usage. A recent front-page story reported that: “The U.S. has seen job shedding at a rate not seen elsewhere…”
Why not: “The U.S. has shed jobs faster than elsewhere”?
Although, of course, the sentence could mean: “The U.S. has shed jobs more slowly than elsewhere.”
All too often the verb is inserted in an automaton-like way when it is totally unnecessary, as in: “Unemployment is higher than the levels seen last year,” which just means that unemployment is higher than last year.
Likewise, a BBC report said that:
The memorandum of understanding on Scots Gaelic is similar to one signed for Welsh last July. However, the move does not see it added to the EU’s list of “official” languages.
Normal English for the second sentence: “Scots Gaelic will not, however, become an official EU language.”
The Washington Post recently contained a headline: House districts that could see 2010 party switch, which should anyway be “switches” as House districts are plural. Much better would be: House districts where parties may switch in 2010.
Reporting on GM’s proposed sale of its German subsidiary Opel, the Associated Press inelegantly referred to “…Magna’s original plan, part of the bid it made in July, which saw cuts including of up to 2,045 at the plant in Bochum…” Plain English: “which included cuts of up to 2,045 at the plant in Bochum…”
Where many writers go wrong is in making some event or abstract concept the subject of the verb “to see.” Thus, the Monday Media section of The Guardian recently contained the phrase: “…a station rebrand – along with the rest of the BBC’s national networks – that saw the Radio 2 logo turn… ginger.” Another story from The Guardian referred to “…the global commodity boom, which saw his company’s profits and shares rocket,” and the Financial Times said “the peaceful revolution of 1989 saw much of eastern Europe embrace the market.” Surely, much of Eastern Europe embraced the market after the peaceful revolution, a development that was not actually witnessed by the revolution itself. In any case, how can a move, a rebrand, a commodity boom or a peaceful revolution see anything?
Is it too much to ask writers to adopt a simple rule of thumb: Apply the verb “to see” only to creatures with eyes? Unfortunately, it probably is.
