In his rant about editorializing headlines, Shafer commits the very sin he's trying to rail against.

The problem is not the word "loophole." The problem is the lazy reporting that fails to justify its use. Shafer pays lip service to it, but ignores for his whine.

And in the meantime, every single one of his substitute headlines is just as bad as the ones he is railing against. Shafer seems to be pushing for the non-informative journalism we see so much of these days: Person A said this. Person B said the opposite. There we go, we reported the news.

Um, didn't Person A say the opposite just a couple weeks ago? And didn't Person B think this was a nothing story until Person A flipped his position? Where is the context? Where is the...oh, what to call it...oh, that's right! "Journalism"?

The role of a reporter is not just to write declarative sentences. It is to provide complete context for the events that happened.

But that entails work and who can do that when you're too busy whining about the word "loophole"?

The new meaning of “loophole” reeks of Eau de Cliché and offends language purists. Do many remember when “a carrot on a stick” meant relentless pursuit of an unattainable goal? “A carrot and a stick” still had not yet intruded.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” became a substitute for “Agree, submit or prepare to be invaded” in 1900. Because it did convey that meaning colorfully the African proverb “Walk softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" faded.

Language is a biological and a social phenomenon. Biological and social phenomena do evolve. During the transitions the users of the old in a new way are often labeled “lazy” or “intellectually careless.” Indeed many of them are, at least momentarily. Where are the editors? Are digital colored pencils ever used to mark “opt?” It seems not.

Without cliché-ridden articles in “quality” publications language would still evolve and grow, just more slowly. Like a tortoise’s hair.