To think the term "hits out" should be reserved for actual hitting

[StealthPolarBear]

this reminded me of it but it's a pet peeve of mine. Trump did not hit anyone but the term is misleading and doubly so when the word violence is in the headline.

It's annoying because it's lazy journalism. Anyone makes any kind of criticism of something, and it's 'X hits out at Y' for a headline.

Figurative language is enriching, and "hits out" has an established meaning, so I'd say YABU.

The phrase 'hits out at' specifically means to try to hit rather than to make contact though. And now it's more often used in media, as a verbal swipe. I think it's a common enough phrase not to be misleading.

I remember many years ago now seeing the headline "Saddam attacks White House". It took just a moment to realise they meant "verbally".

I agree it's lazy journalism. Clichéd too. I take the points about flowery language but I think accuracy is more important.

But it's not inaccurate as the literal meaning of the phrase has a specific meaning of not actually making contact.

But it is meant as physical rather than verbal, right?
Are you suggesting his words haven't reached their intended target?

I would say describing that as lazy journalism is actually kind of lazy. There's an established meaning for "hits out". Lazy journalism also has an established meaning: copying and pasting press releases, failing to check facts or corroborating, starting from a place of bias and sticking to it etc.

Using "hits out" or "attacks" is not lazy journalism. It's not even using language incorrectly, which is the most you could argue it as.

But it is meant as physical rather than verbal, right?
Are you suggesting his words haven't reached their intended target?

No, the point of the metaphor is the attempt, not the miss. I was just saying it's not a metaphor for physically attacking someone.

But there are many other more accurate phrases. Criticises for example. Which are less emotive.

How is it inaccurate though? Something can be emotive but still accurate.

Don't you agree that at first glance this highly suggests physical violence by trump? It's not just the exact words used its the context. Either no one considered this, or they did and they decided to use it anyway. Misleading people is something I'd hope the bbc are above.

It's a very commonly used phrase and I'd expect most people to know exact what it means. It isn't at all inaccurate.

The phrase 'hits out' t suggest a verbal argument in the same sentence as the word violence.

It's becoming more common and that is what this thread is about.

Ultimately metaphor is the basis for all of human language thought and cognition

Do you not understand metaphors??

Do you not like the phase "that was a massive blow" when no physical blow was taken or indeed hit made.

Its neither laxy journalism or inacvurate

Cambridge English dictionary - to criticize something or someone strongly
Macmillan dictionary - to say or do something in order to cause someone emotional pain.
Longman dictionary - to express strong disapproval of someone
Collins dictionary - to attack in words; criticize severely

I'm stopping there.

Op was great in gotg

OK I'm wrong. Yes I do understand metaphors but thanks for asking.

I do envy those busy people with the time to find minor things about which to be offended! English is full of words which are used figuratively, it's what makes it interesting.

Using the same tired old phrases in headlines, whether accurate or not, is lazy journalism.

I would say describing that as lazy journalism is actually kind of lazy

Yes - this is a public forum where no one is being paid to come up with interesting or novel phrases; it's something people use in their leisure time, so laziness is allowed. There are young people queuing up to get into journalism, even doing unpaid internships, so those journalists who actually have jobs and are paid to be interesting should make more of an effort.

Nobody reading that headline would think that Trump physically hit Sadiq Khan (or tried to).

Yes - this is a public forum where no one is being paid to come up with interesting or novel phrases; it's something people use in their leisure time, so laziness is allowed. There are young people queuing up to get into journalism, even doing unpaid internships, so those journalists who actually have jobs and are paid to be interesting should make more of an effort.

But they're not paid to come up with novel phrases. Most journalists are paid to report facts.

If you're going to accuse someone of using a phrase inaccurately, at least make sure you're not doing the same thing. Especially when you're actually wrong about the use of the phrase to start with.

Bold fail.