Last month, I had a little moan on Twitter about Robert Peston, specifically this, about his use of "so-called" to describe the logarithmic scale:
No-one else was too bothered, as you can see. No replies, no retweets, just a couple of likes. I wrote it off as Peston being a bit crap, and me being a bit picky.
But then last night, at around 1am, the anchor on BBC News described the COVID-19 rate of infection as "the so-called R number"! What's so-called about it? It is the R number, plain and simple.
Now I know language changes, so I started to wonder whether the common usage of "so-called" had changed, and no-one had told me. But look, it hasn't... Collins dictionary defines it as an adjective meaning "designated or styled by the name or word mentioned, esp (in the speaker's opinion) incorrectly..." But that's just the British English definition. The same dictionary goes on to define the term's meaning in American English as "popularly known or called by this term". So, as English absorbs more Americanisms, is so-called becoming one of those words that is its own antonym? Both incorrectly called, and correctly called? Like cleave meaning both cut apart and stick together? A contronym, for the other word nerds out there.
Anyway, what's my point? Well, I just wish British journalists would stick to using "so-called" in the conventional British Engligh manner. Logarithmic scales, R numbers... these are not debatable or dubious concepts. They are established factual concepts of science and maths. Sloppy wordplay does them no favours in our age of misinformation and unclear messages.
Better find an appropriate song, I guess.