PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of the big risks in writing a blog like this – a focus on words, including errors in writing – is the fact that you may make new mistakes even as you point out old ones. But this is a risk worth running for me because I am one of those persons who believes that words – including using the right ones – carry great power.

Sometimes the wrong words arise because of typos. Sometimes they are misspellings that a computer program doesn’t catch. Sometimes they convey impressions when they should be neutral. And sometimes they are just plain the wrong word.

It’s always especially difficult when the mistake changes the meaning. Consider one of the mistakes I make repeatedly. It is to use — or at least type — the word now when I mean the word not, or the reverse. This may be because the “w” and “t” letters are fairly close on the laptop keyboard. Or, it may be, as they would say in tennis, that I am committing an unforced error.

If you write this sentence, Jeb Bush says is will now run for president, you mean what it says…Mr. Bush will run. But what if you meant to use the word “not.” The meaning would be reversed. I have made that mistake often more than I care to admit, though not in relation to Mr. Bush.

Or, a mistake many of us have made is to want to use the word “public,” but then leave out the “l.” Not good.

In fact, as I began writing this blog several months ago, I made that mistake in the introduction that runs every time I post a piece. Fortunately, one of my friends caught the mistake and, said, in effect, “Hey Fiskum, get your act together.”

I did in that blog intro and will continue to do so in other pieces – or at least try to do so.

To make a different point about words, consider the impression that could be conveyed by certain ones used in the news media business. How about the word “admitted,” as in this example? The state official admitted that things had gone poorly in the administration of the state program.

The word “admitted” connotes that the individual being quoted was trying to hide something and only “admitted” the problems when caught trying to hide or under pressure from a reporter. If that’s the way it was, so be it.

If not, how about the word “said,” which is clearly more neutral? Perhaps the manager was simply volunteering to identify something he or she had determined to be a mistake.

Or consider the word “defends.” This was the headline in a hill.com post the other day involving new House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Ryan Defends Open Process in Spending Fight.”

Perhaps the word was right because the Speaker might have been coming under attack from members of his own party for opening up the budget-making process to a series of what were called “tough votes.” Thus, he was “defending” his new process.

But, if he was just explaining the new process, why not use that word — “explains” – as in “Ryan Explains Open Process in Spending Fight.” Again, a different impression, one more neutral, is conveyed.

In writing all of this, am I being too defensive myself? Perhaps. But the point is that when such words as “admitted” and “defends” are used so frequently, the impression remains that every issue mentioned by someone being quoted is a matter of substantial contention.

For my part, I vote for neutrality – or at least understanding the impression conveyed by using certain words that don’t convey neutrality. And I also vote for trying hard to use the right words as they convey the power of thoughts.