A Hell of a Scam
Languages evolve, no matter how badly purists want to preserve them. Words change meaning all the time, and there are even certain occasions in which a word can assume a secondary meaning that is opposite to its conventional definition. Here's a case in point, culled from the Sports Illustrated "Fan Nation" blog:
Charles Barkley may be watching his waistline as the new spokesman for Weight Watchers, but apparently he's not watching his words too closely. The outspoken TNT announcer apparently didn't realize his microphone was live during the Atlanta Hawks-Miami Heat matchup on Thursday night and began rambling about his new endorsement deal. "I've been doing Weight Watchers for three months. I have to lose two pounds a week. I'm at 38 pounds now. They come and weigh me every two weeks. I ain't never missed a weigh-in. Never going to," he told fellow announcers Reggie Miller and Kevin Harlan. After Harlan asked him if it was working, the former Suns' big man said he was "feeling much better." "But I ain't giving away no money. I'm not giving away no free money," he added. "I thought this was the greatest scam going-getting paid for watching sports, this Weight Watchers thing is a bigger scam." (emphasis mine)
For those of you unfamiliar with him, Charles Barkley has long had a reputation for making controversial comments. The article here is trying to say that Barkley goofed by referring to Weight Watchers, a company which he represents as a paid sponsor, is a "scam". Simple enough, right?
Look again at the context. Barkley clearly has a positive impression of Weight Watchers, through which the famously round basketballer has lost 38 pounds. His last sentence, which I have bolded for emphasis, is telling: Barkley compares his spokesman gig with Weight Watchers positively to his other job as a television commentator for the NBA. The clear implication is that both gigs are very good deals. In traditional parlance, this would mean the opposite of a "scam", a word used to describe very bad deals- but here Barkley is using "scam" to mean a very good deal- as if to say that he is the one doing the scamming.
"Scam" isn't commonly used in this manner, but the writer should have paid closer attention to the context before accusing Barkley of misspeaking. Perhaps this mini-controversy will bring the alternative meaning of "scam" into wider usage, and Barkley will be thought of as an unlikely linguistic pioneer. Stranger things have happened!
January 8th, 2012 - 21:31
It’s a bit like the Brits having every “scheme” under the sun…which is actually a POSITIVE thing! Heard this in Hong Kong all the time.
January 9th, 2012 - 15:57
I dunno, I read that in the usual sense of “scam”, and I still don’t think he misspoke. He’s just telling it like it is. Getting paid to watch sport is a scam, one for which the likes of Charles Barkley are handsomely rewarded. Do sports commentators actually do anything productive? They hardly even provide entertainment, considering the propensity of commentators to spout brainless twaddle and generally get in the way of the audience enjoying the game. And getting paid to lose weight? It’s all win for Barkley, and his famous face helps Weight Watchers, but again, is he doing anything productive? All he’s doing is helping Weight Watchers extract money from people. That’s fine if the people persuaded by Barkley’s famous face to spend money on Weight Watchers actually benefit, but they could probably just as easily lose weight without spending that money, or even by saving money. So yeah, it’s a scam in the traditional sense of the word, but he’s perfectly correct to say so.
@canrun: I’m no Brit, but I see “scheme” as a basically neutral word. It can be used in a negative sense, and to describe somebody as “scheming” or a “schemer” is not to say anything positive about them, but it can just as easily be used in a positive sense, to mean, for example, a government plan to create jobs or build necessary infrastructure.