Why is the noun "media" almost always treated as singular these days?

[Islander]

Having spent some of the best years of my life as an educator, writer, editor and public/press relations manipulator, I like to think I know my way around the English language. Lately I've noticed what I'd tag as a misuse: sources that should know better treating the word "media" as singular, to wit:

Usually the media loves to play up these "character moments..." - huffpost.com

...what the partisan media normally does to Republicans... - politico.com

...the Tea Party gained a lot of steam from FOX Noise, but it has real roots big media does everything to deny. - truth-out.org

The word is plural; it refers to a collection of communication tools. There are the broadcast media (radio is one medium, television is another medium); there are the print media (newspapers are a medium; magazines are another). Then there are the social media (Facebook, LinkedIn etc., each one a medium for information exchange).

Insist on a cite? Here y'go, from dictionary.com:

me·di·a: noun
1. a plural of medium.
2. ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.

There you are. I think it's sloppy usage. Have at it.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Islander

Usually the media loves to play up these "character moments..." - huffpost.com

You lost me. Are you saying that's not right? Could you correct it to say what it's supposed to say?

[Xploder]

As much as I hate having to do so, I agree with Roo here. In every one of your examples, media is being used in the plural form which would make it correct.

What am I missing?

[The Futility of Nihilism]

Originally Posted by Xploder

What am I missing?

Noun-verb agreement.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by The Futility of Nihilism

Noun-verb agreement.

Explain. I'm braindead today.

[Dirx]

Meh. I fall on both sides of the pre-/descriptivist argument depending on the actual case in question. This is one where I don't really care about it being 'incorroect,' at least when "media" is used to refer to media entities as a collective whole.

Originally Posted by Xploder

As much as I hate having to do so, I agree with Roo here. In every one of your examples, media is being used in the plural form which would make it correct.

What am I missing?

No, actually. It should be "Usually the media love to play..." and "...what the partisan media normally do..."

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Xploder

Explain. I'm braindead today.

Try replacing the word "media" with "people" in each of those sentences.

[Wolf]

No cite necessary. Media is the plural form of "medium." I tend to ignore web articles that cannot use proper English.

[Xploder]

Originally Posted by Annoying Retard Nonny

Try replacing the word "media" with "people" in each of those sentences.

sigh...told ya I was braindead today. I can't believe that YOU had to point that out to me...now I feel all unclean and shit.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by The Futility of Nihilism

Noun-verb agreement.

Ah OK. I wasn't looking at that. Thanks.

[Mustard Stain]

I asked our proofreader about that once when he let the noun-verb agreement slide for the first time (and he's usually quite the stickler for details like that). He said it's at a point where it's evolved in common usage to essentially become a collective term, like "pride" for a "pride of lions".

Strictly speaking, it's not, it's still the plural of "medium".

ETA: He finds it irksome, BTW.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by Roo

Ah OK. I wasn't looking at that. Thanks.

Careful, people might start thinking you're not concerned.

[Islander]

At the risk of having a label stuck on me, I’m going to maintain that words mean something. Let’s take an example that’s less trivial than media, since the example I chose doesn’t lose the original meaning when misused — it just irritates. But how about “begging the question”? This is a rhetorical device in which you deliberately assume the truth of an unproven statement and then proceed to argue from that erroneous assumption. It’s an effective strategy in arguments. But lately I see “begging the question” or “begs the question” used to mean, simply, “asks the question.” Fine, I understand what you’re trying to say, but you are butchering a valuable phrase — a tool frequently used in arguments and debates. Once we defer to the “ask the question” interpretation, the original meaning will be lost...as will that tool. Reading an argument in which one writer accuses another of begging the question will baffle a future generation of readers once the shift in meaning has become commonplace. Language will have generated confusion and befuddlement.

Why there is more at stake than mere cringeworthiness: let’s take the word “unique.” It used to mean “one of a kind.” Not any more. Its customary usage has become simply “unusual.” Now when I see it, I’m not sure which interpretation to apply. Again, confusion results because some things are truly unique — but there is no way to tell, any more, which ones those are. Precision has been lost. The language has become poorer.

I love the richness and precision of the English language. I love its playfulness. I hate to see it lose some of the attributes that make it so powerful. That is all.

[Dirx]

Originally Posted by Islander

At the risk of having a label stuck on me, I’m going to maintain that words mean something. Let’s take an example that’s less trivial than media, since the example I chose doesn’t lose the original meaning when misused — it just irritates. But how about “begging the question”? This is a rhetorical device in which you deliberately assume the truth of an unproven statement and then proceed to argue from that erroneous assumption. It’s an effective strategy in arguments. But lately I see “begging the question” or “begs the question” used to mean, simply, “asks the question.” Fine, I understand what you’re trying to say, but you are butchering a valuable phrase — a tool frequently used in arguments and debates. Once we defer to the “ask the question” interpretation, the original meaning will be lost...as will that tool. Reading an argument in which one writer accuses another of begging the question will baffle a future generation of readers once the shift in meaning has become commonplace. Language will have generated confusion and befuddlement.

It's hard for me to get behind stuff like this, because for the most part phrases like that just aren't taught anymore. People 'learn' it by hearing/reading it somewhere. If they misunderstand the context, then anyone that learns it from them will continue using it incorrectly. Thanks to the internet, this stuff spreads even more rapidly (at least, that's how it seems).

Stuff like "they're / there / their" and "you're / your" are specifically taught (and pretty damn early on, too), so I have no sympathy for those that misuse them. But little-used and outdated terminology, well, on one hand I'd like that stuff to retain its original meaning, but on the other hand it's the perfect example of how language evolves and changes over time.

[Lungfish]

When I heard "media" I take it to be the collective term for tv, radio, newspapers and magazines along with the internet.

[Khampelf]

I thought used to think 'begs the question' meant a question that was begging to be asked.

"Ahhh, this is worse than trying to circumcise a porcupine!!"

"Well, that begs the question, 'how do you know?'".


The question is now to me something like knowing what a 2nd cousin twice removed actually is. Every once in a while I look it up, then forget it again.

[Annoying Retard Nonny]

Originally Posted by Islander

At the risk of having a label stuck on me, I’m going to maintain that words mean something.

Wow, what a meanie! Go back to Meanland, you big meanie!

[BJMoose]

Sloppiness, stupidity, and laziness.

Actually, some collective nouns, like committee, have succeded in making the trek from plural to singular usage. (It used to be the committee are; now it's the committee is.) It looks like media is attempting the same trick, not realizing that it is merely a plural noun, not a collective noun, even if it does refer to a collection of dolts. . . .

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Islander

I love the richness and precision of the English language. I love its playfulness. I hate to see it lose some of the attributes that make it so powerful. That is all.

no u

[Islander]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Sloppiness, stupidity, and laziness.

Actually, some collective nouns, like committee, have succeded in making the trek from plural to singular usage. (It used to be the committee are; now it's the committee is.) It looks like media is attempting the same trick, not realizing that it is merely a plural noun, not a collective noun, even if it does refer to a collection of dolts. . . .

Well it's generally conceded that I'm older than dirt, but I can not remember a time when committee was plural. The whole point of collective nouns is that they're singular. Committee, herd, crowd, faculty, union, are singular. You can have more than one of each, and then they become committees, herds, crowds, etc.

[Khampelf]

Perhaps the shift represents how monolithic, monocultural and monopolistic the media have become. It's no longer a plurality, but a centrally controlled disinformation machine operated on behalf of the plutocrats.

[BJMoose]

Well, I didn't claim it happened in our lifetime. . . .

Maybe I'm wrong about committee, but several similar nouns have made such a shift; I just don't recall any now.

[Roo]

From the quick google search I did, begging the question and media don't seem to me to be in the same state of flux.

When I googled begging the question, all the hits on the first page were about the logical fallacy.

When I googled whether media was singular or plural, the answer about the verb was less clear.

A collective noun can be considered as either singular or plural depending on the sense of the sentence.

Are collective nouns singular or plural?
and

The word “media” is still considered a plural noun and should take a plural verb (as in “the media were all over this story”). Use of “media” in the singular is widely considered a misuse.

But stay tuned. Many usage experts have predicted that in a generation or two “media” will be considered acceptable as a singular noun.

continued with:

For example, “data” is now considered singular by a great many usage experts. “Media” will undoubtedly get there someday. The fact that journalists are already using “mediums” as the plural seems to point the way to the eventual acceptance of “media” as a singular noun.

Is "media" singular or plural?
This was written in 2007. That might have been a generation ago in internet years.

[Lounsbury]

Rather simply, I see usage depending on whether one thinks of media as a collection of entities or an entity in itself.

Personally I am quite fine with either plural or singular, and in fact I think it quite useful to have both usages. The plural signalling a slightly different meaning than the singular.

In any case, have no use for prescriptivists.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Mustard Stain

Strictly speaking, it's not, it's still the plural of "medium".

Except in the usage as referring to the press, it really has lost any connection to that word. Thus one sees "medias."

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Thus one sees "medias."

Ow.

Lounsbury, you are one cruel curmudgeon.

[Lounsbury]

Err.. that is your idea of cruelty?

Surely merely observing that one sees the usage of the word medias is mere observation.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Originally Posted by BJMoose

Sloppiness, stupidity, and laziness.

It is none of those things, if writers and editors consciously decide (see post #11) that the word is being used as a collective.

I don't understand why people object to the natural and logical evolution of the language.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Stupid Sexy Flanders

It is none of those things, if writers and editors consciously decide (see post #11) that the word is being used as a collective.

I don't understand why people object to the natural and logical evolution of the language.

I absolutely agree.

Really what is happening here is there is an evolution of the concept behind the word, from something perceived conceptually as diverse, even fragmented, to something that represents a collective and perhaps analytically homogeneous whole.

While one can characterise that ideologically - as done in a post above - one can simply see this as reflecting a market evolution.

There is nothing sloppy or lazy about such an evolution. Rather, one can say it reflects a primacy of reality over abstractions and ossified academic pedantry that would pretend that word origins trump evolving usage reflecting evolving realities.

(not that I am not personally annoyed by certain usage evolutions - even when I use them: e.g. leverage versus use in business speak. I hate it, but that is personal taste, and I use leverage in business speak as that is the standard, even though I detest the usage.)

[RealityChuck]

People who complain about this use of media as singular clearly have a sinister agenda.

[flatlined]

Originally Posted by Lungfish

When I heard "media" I take it to be the collective term for tv, radio, newspapers and magazines along with the internet.

I always thought the same way. I've learned something today, thank you!

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Stupid Sexy Flanders

I don't understand why people object to the natural and logical evolution of the language.

We fear change.

[MyOwnWorstEnemy]

Originally Posted by Roo

From the quick google search I did, begging the question and media don't seem to me to be in the same state of flux.

When I googled begging the question, all the hits on the first page were about the logical fallacy.

When I googled whether media was singular or plural, the answer about the verb was less clear.

Are collective nouns singular or plural?
and

continued with:

Is "media" singular or plural?
This was written in 2007. That might have been a generation ago in internet years.

As I was reading this thread, I was thinking of the word "data." There are many times that I have to address an email to the rest of the office regarding the unavailability of data to complete daily reports. I've thought that data should be plural, but it just doesn't sound right. I'm happy to know that there are usage experts out there who say the word is now singular. Whew!

[harsh_but_unfair]

Originally Posted by Islander

(snip) Why there is more at stake than mere cringeworthiness: let’s take the word “unique.” It used to mean “one of a kind.” Not any more. Its customary usage has become simply “unusual.” Now when I see it, I’m not sure which interpretation to apply. Again, confusion results because some things are truly unique — but there is no way to tell, any more, which ones those are. Precision has been lost. The language has become poorer.

And then modifying it, as in "very unique" or "quite unique". I know this is becoming common usage, but it still makes me spit feathers.

A friend of mine is a bit of a language nazi, and he argues that the word "genuine" is always redundant. If something isn't genuine, then it isn't what you're saying it is. (Your jacket is made from genuine leather? As opposed to leather?)

[Fish]

Oooh, a language thread.

Quick, what's the plural of "medium" when you're speaking of multiple soothsayers, or multiple middle-sized drink cups? That's right: mediums. Bad Latin; good English.

So I can get behind "media" as a singular English word meaning "the collection of outlets that publish, print, or broadcast, each in a different medium." This usage goes back to 1920, somewhere around the introduction of wireless radio as a public distribution network. It made perfect sense at the time to say, "Radio is a medium; these two thousand radio broadcasters constitute a media; these five thousand newspapers and magazines constitute another media; together, both of them are medias." Words get invented and perpetuated because they communicate a vital interest of the people who speak the language. As Dirx says, we learn these words from others because we see the meaning and purpose. Besides, "we can't say this in English, because we wouldn't say it in Latin" is a ridiculous position.

Does anybody these days get upset about the corruption of the word "drove" to mean "piloted a petroleum-powered land vehicle," when it is supposed to mean "to forcibly move one or more herd animals?" Does anybody complain about "cellular" meaning "compartmentalized network of repeating antennae" when it's supposed to mean "a monk's cubicle?" No — times change, words change. We may be on the verge of losing "begging the question" as a useful term in debate and rhetoric, but the real crime is that we've stopped teaching logic and rhetoric as part of a liberal arts education. Sure, readers in the Distant Future will be perplexed by our usage, but fuck those guys. I don't speak with them, or to them.

As for "unique," I can't stand it. Either it's got a strict definition of "unlike anything else in the span of space and time," in which case it can only be applied so rarely as to be useless, or it means "unusual," in which case we have diluted its meaning to the point of flaccid bromide. It is most useful when defined and delimited, eg, "this species is unique to Madagascar." But many species are unique to someplace; and many are unique to Madagascar, so being unique to Madagascar (or to anywhere else) is not itself a unique trait — therefore, there must be limitations and gradations of how unique something is. In how many ways is that thing unique? How distinct is it from its closest peers, if any?

Then we have other plural-as-singular nouns. As BJMoose points out "data," I'll point out "mathematics," "physics," and "gymnastics." I'll also point out the word "pair," and collective nouns like "forest." This is a battle that's long since been lost.

That said: I'll go to the mat for the distinction between genuine and authentic, or between precision and accuracy. A genuine Tudor house is built exactly in the style of the Tudor period; an authentic Tudor house was built during the Tudor period. Genuine = genus = family, authentic = by the author = created by.

[Colonel Plink]

I refer to radio, television and The Internet collectively as Media.

I refer to newspapers as Medium. Because, with newspapers today, anything well done is rare.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Colonel Plink

I refer to radio, television and The Internet collectively as Media.

I refer to newspapers as Medium. Because, with newspapers today, anything well done is rare.

Marry me.

[THespos]

I'm in advertising planning/buying, and the media/medium thing has irked me since day one of my working in this business.

My mass comm. professors used to give me all sorts of shit if I used "media" as singular. I'd get points off on papers, etc. So I became something of a stickler about it after graduation. When I arrived at my first ad agency, I was surprised at how few people treated "media" as a plural. On top of that, like Lounsbury, I heard a lot of people using 'medias' and, more commonly, 'mediums' when referring to channels of communication.

As a matter of fact, I had a heated exchange on an industry discussion list with someone who insisted on using 'mediums' all the time. It turned into a flamewar. Some time later, he and I became really good friends and at one point went into business with one another. We were fond of pointing out that our first interaction was a flamewar over this silly subject.

Surprisingly, many years later I'm still anal about it. I write a lot of opinion pieces for the trade, and you'll not find a singular 'media' in several hundred articles I've written. It's just one of those things - in this respect, I'm kind of like those people who freak out if you forget that "a lot" is two words.