Is "hopefully" an "ignorant Americanism" or an acceptable "sentence adverb"? Is "toff" more or less objectionable than "career woman"? To divine the character of a media organisation - what it cares about, how it wishes to be seen, who it fears - look to its style guide. Luckily, many are freely available - this month Reuters becomes the latest to publish its guide online.
So what does it reveal? There is the internationalism (cap up "Cabinet" for any country's senior ministers); financial expertise (authoritative notes on "Brent" in the oil market and "tankan" in Japanese business); the need to write a great deal, quickly, without developing bad habits (an excellent entry on the abuse of "as" in news stories). From "balk, not baulk", you also get the sense that they don't cover much snooker.
The Telegraph's style book features old-school prescriptions in Simon Heffer's best angry/comical manner. He is the one calling "hopefully" ignorant. The strongest anxiety is not to seem "tabloid", which accounts for bans on "heartbreak", "luxury" and "last night". The Telegraph does not "reveal" exclusives; it "discloses" them.
The Times style and usage guide seems more concerned about over-formality. No need to spell out "British Broadcasting Corporation"; "rom-com" (hyphenated) is acceptable; and please try to avoid calling Osama bin Laden "Mr". There remains a flavour of upper crust. When it comes to gentlemen's clubs it is "important to get the names correct as our readership remains strong in clubland".
And the Guardian style guide? It is sensitive to prejudice, of course, and not only on obvious boo-boos such as "career woman". You can find a relish for pop-culture trivia, and a high number of jokes. There are also, uniquely, frequent quotations from readers' correspondence: complain about this article, and you may land me in the next edition.
