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.

If you're going to accuse someone of using a phrase inaccurately, at least make sure you're not doing the same thing.

I didn't say it was inaccurate - I said it was lazy. If you're going to accuse someone of accusing someone of using a phrase inaccurately, at least make sure you are quoting them accurately!

Other examples of figurative language:
"pet peeve"
"flowery words"
"his words haven't reached their target"

Why are they acceptable if "hits out" isn't? Aren't they just examples of lazy post writing, and should be replaced with accurate if less interesting wording making the posts less engaging?

Actually I was referring to the OP who said

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

They're all cliches, LordEmsworth. There's nothing wrong with figurative language, but 'hits out' is seen again and again in headlines - it's no longer engaging, it's become boring through overuse.

As I said before, no one here is being paid for their time writing these posts - naturally no one will be intentionally boring, but we all have day jobs and/or domestic work to fit in around our Mumsnetting - I don't have time to spend crafting every post so that it uses the freshest, most exciting words I can contrive to convey my meaning. If I had the eight hours a day that I spend earning my living to write Mumsnet posts, I'd rewrite them until they sparkled.

The journalists at the BBC are being paid to make their posts engaging. I don't agree with AtomicBob that journalists are only paid to report the facts - if that were the case, we'd only need one newspaper, and one journalist reporting on each event.

The linked article would need to say no more than: 'Donald Trump posted the following tweets criticising Sadiq Khan: [list of tweets]. That might be how AtomicBob likes to read the news, which as a personal preference is fine, but I doubt it would sell many papers/gain many clicks.

YAB too literal.

Actually I was referring to the OP

It was my post, not the OP's, that you quoted before making your comments, so this wasn't clear.

We would then have to outlaw:

• "bites back"
• "strikes down"
• "trounces"
• "deals a blow"
• "knocks out"

Have any of you picking my posts to pieces (there's another) spotted that I have admitted I was wrong? Where does missing that fit on the laziness scale?

stelth you are being very uotight about this.

Including to be honest your reply to me. You asked a question about the usage of langage. One that to be honest is taught in year 7, or at least it was in 1992. I was genuinely asking if you had an not understood a legitimate technique. For instance i'm autistic and i quite often have to double check myself for every day phases instead of taking them literally. Instead i got quite a rude reply from you back i left it cos i thought ok cant be arsed for the arguement here.

You are a long time user of this site, amd i'm absolutely sure you've been guilty of not reading more than the first post. Now your attacking people who feisably have seen you asking and being fairly insistant on that hits out means physical violence.

Yes you've admitted you were wrong. People are simply explanding the discussion or havent seen more than your first post.

I'm not sure why your so angry

Where have i attacked?

I have apologised and said I was wrong! I'm really not the one dragging this out.