In that kerfuffle last week with Facebook and the Teen Vogue sponsored content, I was amused when I caught myself mid-parse and realized that the confusing thing I’d interpreted was incorrect, but funnier than the actual story, which was merely disappointing.
Reading the New York Times account of the incident, there’s a side note that seemed to be a meta note asking what Teen Vogue was:
Somehow I interpreted this as a cleverly ironic response:
- The above online critic, assumed to be older than the intended audience of Teen Vogue is asking to clarify what Teen Vogue even is, as it’s unusual for an unfamiliar publication to be discussed in the Times.
- Teen Vogue, cheekily replying in character as the caricature of a Gen Z or Millenial that they believe they’re depicted as in general as well as by the former critic in particular snarkily replies, “literally idk.”
We tell on ourselves in so many ways! Assuming I’m the “old” weird person who would have to ask what Teen Vogue is in my first parse. And of course the snarky younger person.
I call this out just because I’m a writer (and I suppose a critic) as well as a linguist and I managed to catch myself reading something wrong and correcting myself. How often do we not catch ourselves? How often do we have multiple citations of a single source, creating the impression of consensus or multiple actual sources that at a glance might appear to be unique, lending weight to a hasty judgement?
Hopefully not frequently. I did this myself writing this here blog post, attempting to find the source tweet for the “literally idk” exchange (it has since been deleted).
Vigilance is hard work!