Haha. That article exemplifies exactly what he's complaining about. It's poorly written, doesn't clearly explain his point and is basically an ad for his book. He doesn't define what he means by "bullshit" until 3/4 into the article. Did he have an editor? His article lacked clarity. As for the accuracy, it was opinion piece. That's not a factual thing, as is most communication on the internet. CYA memos clearly and accurately convey what they're trying to convey. They're trying to CYA. They don't fall under the definition of "bullshit" as he's defined it. It's true that print media was a lot more edited before the internet. There are a lot of ramifications of that. His analysis is simplistic and unhelpful. This is just an ad for his book and a good example of what he considers "bullshit". If he could clearly and accurately convey what needs to be changed to create writing that is not "bullshit", the might be a step in the right direction. He has not done that here. Given there's so much access to the internet, there's no way to get everyone to the same level of education and ability to clearly and accurately convey their point.Bullshit is communication that wastes the reader’s time by failing to communicate clearly and accurately. With no editors, clarity and accuracy are hit or miss, and bullshit is inevitable.
If you’re lucky, soon after you graduate, you get a job. The first thing they do is show you the employee manual, which is full of legalese and jargon. Your colleagues are writing long, cover-your-ass bullshit in the reports and emails you read. So you take those skills you learned in school and become part of the corporate bullshit machine.
Until every writing teacher, administrator and legislator in America reads and changes the way we teach writing, this won’t be any different. But that’s ok. I’ll settle for changing you. Just recognize that what you learned in high school and college is not what you need now to write without bullshit.
He gives a pretty good outline in the first two paragraphs — "unnecessary words", "jargon", and "unclear" all jump out as examples of what he's calling bullshit. That sets him up to go into more depth later. He's not really a social critic, as far as I can tell, and I don't think he ever set out to analyze those ramifications. It looks like he writes books about effective business techniques. It's very common for writers and actors and directors to go on the circuit to promote their upcoming thing. Every interviewee, every chat show guest, has some new thing that is now available in fine cinemas or bookstores everywhere. It's not an unreasonable way to do things, so long as their interview or article isn't just an ad — it should stand on its own in some way. This article outlines how an interesting problem came about. His book is, naturally, about how individuals can fix it. I probably won't buy the book, but I did enjoy reading the article.He doesn't define what he means by "bullshit" until 3/4 into the article.
There are a lot of ramifications of that. His analysis is simplistic and unhelpful.
This is just an ad for his book
They're trying to convey something else, then obscure it in the name of CYA, so everyone reading has to decode what you're trying to say without putting YA on the line. It is wasted effort, but it has more to do with working in an authoritarian organization than not knowing how to be more clear.CYA memos clearly and accurately convey what they're trying to convey. They're trying to CYA. They don't fall under the definition of "bullshit" as he's defined it.
I disagree that CYA memos are wasted effort. They serve an important function. They are documentation and internal paper trail devices that give the person's stance on something. If there's an issue that's blowing up around you, it's important to create a document about why you did or did not take action, what authority you had to do it and why you took that action. In the memo, the original issue is likely to be obscure because in order for it to be clearer, the person taking a stance would have to point a finger at the person they think is at fault. It's better not to do that. It's still a clear and accurate portrayal of what the person is trying to convey. They're trying to convey a CYA memo. I agree that it has to do with working in an authoritarian organization, but almost all organizations are authoritarian by their nature.