Keep It Simple, Stupid
November 18, 2011 
Sometimes, in language, less is more. That can be a tough pill to swallow for editors like me who can easily set off on rhetorical flourishes and are loath to cut our precious words. But, the tenant KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) instructs us plain language often reaches masses far better than some high-brow musings.
Despite KISS, we live in a world where words are focus grouped to have the maximum impact. On the flip side, political correctness threatens to drain the meaning out of language. We tend to add syllables and make words longer or even add more words to describe something to alter its meaning or make it less likely to offend our tender sensibilities.
I was reminded of all this when writing the story on I Love Farmers …They Feed My Soul featured this month on page 26. J. Scott Vernon, who founded the group, recently spoke to members and staff of the American Farm Bureau Federation about farm advocacy, and one of his pieces of advice was to use “farmers” when referring to, well, farmers.
I found that refreshing because I recall getting a slight slap on the wrist for using the term “farmer” when I started in agricultural communications and media 16 years ago. I grew up in a farming community and my family’s business was in agriculture and that’s what we called each other. So it seemed natural to use the term in writing. But, I was told that using farmer might be construed by the public to be less sophisticated — you know, like a hayseed. That is one of the inherent problems with political correctness. We soften or change the words out of some sense of moral superiority, but at the time, it exposes the underlying prejudice of those who seek to change the language.
It was thought better to use terms like “producer” and “grower,” which I did and still do. We like to use grower here for obvious reasons given our magazine’s name. But, it is good to see people coming around to using farmer. By the way, I’ve used farmer many times in my 16 years in ag media writing, despite what some suggested.
A more recent term to come into favor is “modern agriculture.” I see it quite a bit in literature or hear it in Capitol Hill testimony. I’m sure I’ve probably used it here on this page at some point. The term is used to counter groups who are anti-pesticide, (excuse me, crop protection and biotechnology). It connotes the idea that we need modern technology and techniques to feed our world with massive population growth and shrinking land and water resources. That’s true, so as terms go, I guess it’s okay.
The thing is, we in agriculture know why we use this term as well as those groups who are opposed to modern agriculture. In fact, a quick Google search of “modern agriculture” shows some of those opposition groups are turning the term against us. I just wonder who is fooling who.
We should be less worried about the opposition groups and more concerned with the public — our consumers. Just imagine if you walked up to some regular Joe on the streets of New York City who has never set foot on a farm and asked him, “Do you support farmers or modern agriculture?” How do you suppose he’d answer?
Subscribe Today For
