Bugbears: SVO,O,+VO

Taken from a recent BBC News technology story (which appears to have been taken down, but you can still Google this phrase if you don't believe me):

A gadget for the blind reads labels, audio books and plays music.

I see this type of sentence construction a lot, even from professional journalists, and I believe that most people don't have any problem with it. But I do.

This gadget reads labels and plays music, but what does it do with audio books? 'Read them', I hear you say. But, except as a headline, you would never write:

A gadget for the blind reads labels, audio books.

Instead you would write:

A gadget for the blind reads labels and audio books.

This suggests the original construction needs another 'and'. Giving you:

A gadget for the blind reads labels and audio books, and plays music.

I suppose the comma is optional, but it helps indicate a change of verb is coming.

Words our colleagues hate

All writers and sub-editors have their personal writing bugbears. If you read this blog regularly, you will be familiar with many of Apus's and mine - I, for example, have unresolved issues with the word 'new'.

Today I asked a few of my colleagues (designers, subs and writers) for the bugbear words and phrases they hate to see appear in the pages of our publication. Here's a selection - and note that I don't necessarily agree with all of them:

• Together with. No! Just use 'with' or 'and'.

• Interestingly. No! If it's going in the magazine, of course it should be interesting - you don't need to tell the readers so.

• Of course. No! If it's obvious, why are you mentioning it? If it's not obvious, don't make readers feel small for not knowing something. Is it a sign of insecurity on the part of the writer?
  

• Back in (1996, for example). No! Just put 'in 1996'.

• Explains. Especially in interviews. For example: "We entered this sector because it is growing fast," he explains. It makes the interviewer look as if they're a bit simple.

• Smiles. For example: "It's a great place to work," he smiles.

Regarding the last one, I don't know whether it is better or worse than 'he said smilingly'. And today I came across 'he concluded indicatively', which is slightly too grandiose...

Smiles: we hate this