# EN: the media - singular / plural



## clairefontaine1

Hi there! 

Which is the correct form? _is_ or _are?_ 
thank you


----------



## LMorland

Actually, _media_ is a plural (Latin) noun, and so the correct form should be _*media are*. _

However, I just typed "*the media is*" (in quotes) into Google, and got back *1,670,000 *hits. So it's a case of usage trumping correctness.

(Also, I hope that a speaker of British English will chime in, as it's my impression that one _does _say _*media are* _in BE. Am I right?)


----------



## Suehil

Yes, you're right.  The media are....


----------



## Antipodean

_The Cambridge Guide to English Usage_ (2004) states inter alia: 

An _Oxford English_ (1989) citation from 1966 noted the use of *media* as a singular noun "spreading into upper cultural strata" - a not-entirely neutral observation. The dictionary still labels such usage "erroneous" ... . _New Oxford_ (1998) moves things along one step with a usage note saying that *media* "behaves as a collective noun", and is  "acceptable in standard English with either singular or plural". 

Therefore, the traditional BE view is that it's plural:  The media are reporting on this  subject. 

However, it is now acceptable to use the singular verb: The media is reporting on this subject. 

(Australian usage, by and large, conforms with BE usage. Personally, I say: the media are ... but I can't speak for anyone else. )


----------



## baker589

I really can't pick between the two.  I think in practice, I would tend to use it in the singular, purely because it is easier to shorten:

_The media's arrived_ meaning the media has arrived.

_The media's here_ meaning the media is here. 

I think the answer to your question is that both are correct.  You can decide which you want to use.


----------



## geostan

Just to add a Canadian perspective, I would say _The media are_. There are too many possibilities (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) to use a singular verb. Moreover, dictionaries are becoming notoriously descriptive and permissive. There are usages that do evolve, usually for a good reason. But I don't think this is a good example.


----------



## Dzienne

Antipodean said:


> _...__New Oxford_ (1998) moves things along one step with a usage note saying that *media* "behaves as a collective noun", and is  "acceptable in standard English with either singular or plural".



This is true.  But it depends also on context.  "The artistic media he uses are clay, paints, and aluminum cans." or "The media (the press) is part of the problem in the OJ Simpson case."  I hope this makes sense.


----------



## aztlaniano

Antipodean said:


> *media* "behaves as a collective noun", and is "acceptable in standard English with either singular or plural".


Moreover, it often replaces "medium" as the individual noun in the context of mass communication: "one news media reported..."


----------



## Dzienne

aztlaniano said:


> Moreover, it often replaces "medium" as the individual noun in the context of mass communication: "one news media reported..."



Exactly what I meant.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

I agree with Dzienne,

I'm more likely to say *the media is *rather than *the media are*, just as I'm a much more likely to use* the data is* rather than *the data are*, though in Science classes, I almost exclusively use *the data are*.


----------



## Kelly B

Moderator note: a search on Collective Nouns in the English Only forum will yield many discussions about nouns that are treated as singular in US English, but as plural in British English.


----------



## Anglo1

I'm a self-confessed pedant, but it is *the media are*_.  _Personally, I find it annoying when people use "is", but I know that I'm in a minority here.


----------



## LMorland

Anglo1 said:


> I'm a self-confessed pedant, but it is *the media are*_._


I believe the point was well made above (including by me) that the correct form is _the media are_, but thanks for chiming in!


----------



## aztlaniano

Anglo1 said:


> It is *the media are*_. _Personally, I find it annoying when people use "is".


Very annoying. 
It should not be inferred from my previous comment on the use of "media is" that I condone the practice, or even (perish the thought) engage in it myself; I most emphatically do not.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Beware of oncoming British usage.

Let's take a parallel, "_the press_".  We can say _the press has arrived_ if we think of it as a monolith, but a sequence such as "the press has arrived and it's blocking the entrance to the airport" is highly improbable.  The reason is clear - if these people are so numerous, they must be in the plural!

As press, so media.  _The media is agreed.  The media are in disagreement_.  In that respect the word behaves like _government, police,_ etc. etc.

However, I'd find it very hard to bring myself to say "The BBC is just one news media among many."  Clearly it's one medium, like oil paint is one medium.  But there again, I had the benefit of a Latin education.


----------



## SteveThompson

Keith, that sounds sensible and pragmatic. Having been in the media and now conduct research on the media, I tend to consider 'the media' a collective such as family or society. Certainly media is the plural of medium and should be treated accordingly. We can also ask, "Who is the media?" or "Who are the media?" or even claim "We are the media" or "We are the media" with significant considerations as one definitely may sound or appear correct. Personally, I write that 'the media is' and am comfortable feeling there is no acceptable correction for that, while realizing media are created from multiple medium sources, or 'mediums.'


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi,

Resurrecting this thread to pose a question to those who think that _*media *_can only be plural.  What do you use after *social media*: a singular or a plural verb?  I always say/write "social media is".  I can't really imagine saying or writing "social media are".


----------



## LMorland

djweaverbeaver said:


> to those who think that _*media *_can only be plural....



@djweaverbeaver, we don't _think_ that "media can only be plural," it is simply correct.  However, we acknowledge (see my reference to the number of Google hits I obtained in January 2009 for "media is") that usage is trumping correctness.

Why don't you provide an entire sentence for discussion?  Here's a plural version I just came up with that sounds natural to me:

_The recent example of a woman's broadcasting live video of her boyfriend being shot 
by police shows how social media are changing the reporting landscape._​


----------



## Kelly B

I'd probably use _is _there, despite the fact that LMorland is correct, strictly speaking. In American English we sometimes treat that kind of plural noun as collective or uncountable instead, in the same way we'd say _the soccer team is xyz._


----------



## Keith Bradford

djweaverbeaver said:


> ...  I can't really imagine saying or writing "social media are".


Come on, DJ, don't boast of a lack of imagination!  According to this diagram Social media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there are over two hundred social media - how and why should we imagine there is one monolithic singular?  Doesn't make much sense to me...


----------



## LMorland

Keith Bradford said:


> According to this diagram Social media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there are over two hundred social media - how and why should we imagine there is one monolithic singular?



Hear, hear, Keith! When I composed that sentence I was, of course, thinking of _plural _social media -- Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Periscope, and many others -- and I was hoping that the plurality underlying that use of "social media" would be evident.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@LMorland, your sentence doesn't sound incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't think that I would spontaneously form a sentence with it using a plural verb.  I agree with @Kelly B's assessment.  And to @Keith Bradford, it may not make sense to you, but that the way I see and hear it used on this side of the Pond.  I know we should take Google searches with a grain of salt, but they yield more new articles hits for "social media is/has" than for "social media are/have".  Moreover, _The Guardian_ has in the subtitle to a *recent article*: "Social media _*has *_swallowed the news - threatening funding for public-interest reporting and ushering in an era when everyone has their own facts."   Even with a singular verb, I think it's quite clear that one is almost always talking about various platforms, but as a collective.


----------

