Friday, August 22, 2008 Seares: OK, but okay to what? By Pachico A. Seares News Sense
A news reporter sends a text to a public official to tell him the Government has withdrawn the MOA with the rebels, what does he think?
The official's reply: "OK."
OK to what? That (a) he agrees with the Palace decision, or (b) he'll give a comment on it later, or (c) yes, he got the text?
Up close, when you're talking with the person saying OK, you can see body language and hear nuances of the uttered word or phrase.
Does OK go with a snort or grunt, a lifted eyebrow, a blank stare? Does he say it without looking at you? He's fiddling with his phone or looking into a bag as if he just retrieved the word OK from there.
In text messages, of course, you don't get any help from the sender. The enigma is as vast as all the empty space after "Ok" or, worse, "K."
Miserly "K"
On that stingy "K," a telecom boss tells me the cost of sending isn't reduced by eliminating one letter. So why being miserly? Energy required to push one more letter is not that exhausting.
I am all for brevity, sure. I ask writers to shun "endeavor" if "try" will do. I tell them there's clemency and a spot in heaven for journalists who assault with sharp pens or what blunt objects are at hand an interviewee who oppresses them with verbose and tedious answers.
But I do find sheer waste when, in the scrimping on words, clarity suffers.
Vagueness may be intended, of course. The sender doesn't want to commit himself or hasn't yet made up his mind.
Wait, I'm getting a text. It says, "You're invited to cocktails at the office of the mayor…" My reply? "OK. Thanks."
The "thanks" should make up for anything else not said.
