After The Boston Globe used the word “circus’’ three times in campaign coverage recently, it’s time for a usually silent minority to speak up.

One drawback to having careers as both a journalist and editor and an acrobat and juggler is my annoyance with certain verbiage in campaign coverage. A commentator may be on point that a debate is in chaos, that campaign advertising is hollow bombast, or that a candidate is a nincompoop. But when these observations are characterized with the word “circus,’’ I bristle, because that usage is directly opposite the reality.

The word “circus’’ is often used to describe a scene utterly out of control. But as one who, with my talented wife and partner, performed as a circus and variety artist for decades, my view is that a circus production is the opposite of chaos. In my experience, a circus is a model of efficiency, planned and executed with precision. Its performers are obsessively disciplined. In our work, a half-baked attitude in practice or performance could result in serious injury or an early grave.

To elevate a lowly shouting match of jowly candidates to the status of “circus’’ is an affront to the artist-athletes devoted to exploring the heights of human potential.

This missive may inform a few, but the resigned expectation is for another season of campaign commentary that perpetuates a carnival, if you will, of misconceptions. Alas, the show must go on.

Reginald W. Bacon, Newburyport