Verily. The mainstream media, bastion of journalistic integrity, is reporting on the paternity claims regarding Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern. That’s to be expected; it’s like a celebrity version of The Jerry Springer Show and that means money to be made.
But, is it really necessary for professional journalists to use the vulgarism “baby-daddy” to describe those contending that they are, in fact, the baby’s father. It’s not as if the term is even a proper abbreviation. It has the same number of syllables as “baby’s father” and actually two more syllables than “child’s dad”, both of which are proper English. The term is intended not to make speech easier, but to purposely flaunt the notion of standard English and showcase the willful ignorance of the speaker or, God forbid, writer. Which is it that these professional journalists are shooting for?
Somewhere there ought to be a middle ground between intellectual snobs who think that any book is more valuable than any hamburger and the stupidity of those who glory in not knowing the subjective from possessive cases. When the middle ground is professional writers adopting the latter course, the end may be near.
(Pointer to the Salon article on hamburgers and literature from EclectEcon)