Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics
CHOICE Review
Ellmore's dictionary covers all the media, and then some: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, film, graphic arts, books (and by extension, some library terms), billboards, public relations, and advertising. Moreover, Ellmore notes that the media must include the related fields of acting, animation, announcing, audience measurement, audio, music, journalism, print technologies, media programming, media regulation, criticism, makeup, lighting, satellites, scenery, writing AND automation, engineering, history, and law and management terms as they pertain, and so forth. In short, this dictionary attempts to answer all media language queries. In many ways it succeeds: Ellmore has included as many new words as possible as well as a generous selection of antiquated terms; he makes extensive use of "see," "see also," and "cf." notes. On the down side, sometimes one must consult two or three entries to get a complete definition; on several occasions cross-references that would be useful are missing; and with the wide range of subject matter, sometimes the definitions are a bit skimpy. Although most terms are from standard, recognizable English, simply in a new context, some are unfamiliar and a pronunciation guide would be helpful--especially for the legal Latin derivatives. Another improvement would be illustrations of some of the more obscure technical items. Recommended for libraries at any level seeking brief definitions, in good binding and typeface, covering this wide and various field. -D. A. Schmitt, St. Louis Community College at Meramec
Booklist Review
Compiled by a media professor at Texas Christian University, this Dictionary defines more than 20,000 terms relating to film, radio, television, books, newspapers, magazines, direct mail, and outdoor advertising. To a lesser extent it also covers terms used in a wide variety of related areas, such as acting, audience measurement, graphic arts, lighting, printing, and public relations. Entries range from recently coined expressions like couch potato to technical terms like voltage standing-wave ratio. Even some older words no longer in common use, such as evulgate, are included. In addition, acronyms and abbreviations are generously represented. Entries are arranged alphabetically, letter by letter, and access between entries is facilitated by frequent use of see, see also, and Cf. references. Ellmore's definitions are generally quite brief, and in some instances they lack sufficient detail to fully clarify a word's meaning. Often, the terminology used to define technological processes and equipment (e.g., differential PCM, real-time sector) is too technical to be understood by a nonspecialist, while the definitions of other specialized terms (e.g., little America method, user bits) are sometimes worded so obliquely that they may be of little value to a layperson. This work is strikingly similar in scope to Richard Weiner's Webster's New World Dictionary of Media and Communications [RBB S 1 90]. Although Weiner's compilation includes approximately 30,000 definitions, it actually contains fewer entries than Ellmore. However, Weiner's definitions are generally fuller and clearer than Ellmore's, and they frequently provide additional information that contributes to a better understanding of the term. For example, Ellmore's entry high-definition television does not note that such a system enhances pictorial clarity, whereas Weiner's does. Moreover, Ellmore's definition of delay time as "the amount of time one signal lags behind another" contrasts sharply with Weiner's more detailed explanation, which notes that a lag of approximately seven seconds can be inserted between broadcast and transmission of a program to allow for the deletion of objectionable material. While there is considerable overlap between the dictionaries, many terms appear in only one. For instance, defamacast, Friday hook, Reardon report, and silent bit are unique to Ellmore, whereas Foreign Broadcast Information Service, frisky furniture, plow folding, and sample tolerance appear only in Weiner. Because these two dictionaries complement each other in many respects, large libraries, particularly academic libraries that support strong media and communications programs, may want both. Smaller libraries that have to make a choice will be better served by the Weiner work since it is more appropriate for a general audience. (Reviewed Sept. 1, 1991)
