If there’s one thing Jack Shafer hates to see, it’s media outlets jumping on imaginary trends, especially of the drug use variety. But if there are two things Jack Shafer hates to see, it’s reporters editorializing in their supposedly objective copy. Which is why he’s tired of seeing the word “loophole” show up so often, especially in political reports. “It’s a loaded, partisan word,” says Jack, “one that implies wrongdoing and scandal where none exists, and inserting it into a political argument gives the inserter the upper hand. When loophole creeps into news stories, they start to read like editorials.”

Clearly, not many papers feel the way he does (in what looks like a column topic that’s been shelved for a few weeks). Rags with titles that include “New York,” “Boston,” “Times,” and “Tribune” all allow the use of the “extra naughty” word. We know what you’re thinking: Somewhere, in the history of journalism, there must have been a major loophole that allowed this.

Original post by Perez Hilton and software by Elliott Back