My brother once told me that the difference between an adventure and a vacation is that a vacation is fun while it is happening, but an adventure is fun to talk about later. I see the same distinction in wit versus stupidity. One particularly adventuresome time during my day is during the evening news. And although each time I sit down to watch, I never know what new tidbits I'll be able to make fun of later, there are certain consistencies in stupidity that I have come to rely on.
To start, the words 'should', 'might', and 'could' have no place in journalism, yet they are used generously. “This law could set the civil rights movement back by thirty years.” How incredibly vague and completely impossible to measure. Are there really people sitting around nodding their heads at statements like that? “You know, since the facts he just gave us don't support that conclusion at all, I never would have made that connection. But he may be on to something there. It just could!” I may not have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the general population, but I completely trust in their ability to speculate and overreact all on their own. They don't need media assistance with that particular attribute.
Another word that pops up during the news is 'clearly'. I don't need things pointed out to me that are clear. No one does. That's what the word means. But they are never really using it to point out things that are clear anyway. They use is as a substitute for saying, “If you don't agree with my opinion, this should be evidence that I am right.” It's a sneaky way of being condescending while sounding supportive. “This law is clearly designed to set the civil rights movement back by thirty years.”
A phrase that also gets a lot of use is 'made history'. First of all, it's an annoying phrase since everything that happens is, by definition, making history. But in context, they are trying to add importance to certain events by deeming them historical. Not everything that happens is going to make the history books. Stop pretending it is just because you think it's neat.
Something that I have heard more and more often lately is that the experts are surprised, amazed, or in some way completely taken aback by an event. How is that? Maybe they need new experts. Ones that have enough of a grasp on the situation that they are not constantly astounded by the outcome. Or maybe they should just stop calling them experts. They could be experts-in-training. When they stop being surprised by how things turn out, then they are experts.
Also, I have grown weary of the recaps of various speeches, particularly when the speech is aired immediately proceeding the recap. What is the purpose of recapping something everyone just listened to? If they are concerned with the public's inability to decipher the language, then perhaps they should rethink their usage of valuable air time. While the speech is actually occurring, maybe an infomercial would make a good filler in their scheduling. And what is worse, they don't give a blow by blow paraphrasing of the speech...they interpret it for us. Usually to a degree which leaves me unable to recognize the original speech. And with an overabundance of the word 'clearly'.
No comments:
Post a Comment