Posts
...by offering some pesky news cliches for your consideration. The fact that most of them concern the president is due to the fact that although he was elected to deal with events that are in the news, the reality is that, more often than not, he is the news, and he goes to pains to insure that it will remain that way.
Walked Back, as in, "The president walked back his earlier comments."
Fired Back, as in "The president fired back against his critics."
Pushed Back, as in, "The president pushed back in the face of continued allegations."
Doubled Down, as in, "The president doubled down when his statement was shown to be in error."
Opened Up, "In an exclusive interview, she opened up about sexually predatory behavior on the part of the president."
Broke His Silence, as in, "He finally broke his silence about what really happened on that deadly night in July."
Speaking Out, as in, "Victims of sexual abuse are finally speaking out."
Growing Outrage, as in, "The president's remarks have inspired growing outrage."
Taking Heat, as in, "Donald Trump's children are taking heat for using their father's office for monetary gain."
Heads Turned, as in, "Heads turned when Melania Trump proclaimed her concern for children in a jacket upon which was emblazoned the words, 'I really don't care. Do you?'"
Dog Whistle, as in, "Many argue that the president's boasts of being a credit to his genes are a dog whistle to white nationalists."
America is talking, as in, "America is talking about renewed allegations that the president colluded with Russia."
Explosive new allegations, as in, "Yet another woman came forward today with explosive new allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of the president.
Witch Hunt, as in, "The president said that the investigation into whether he used his office for financial gain is a witch hunt."
Flooding Event, as in "The president left the small North Carolina town just hours before it was inundated by a record flooding event."
Drought Event, as in, "The state is in its fifth straight year of a record drought event."
Forest fire event, as in, "A record forest fire event is being fueled by high winds and extreme drought."
Fatal event, as in, "Zebrux has been shown to cause fatal events in some users.
Whence cometh this constant use of cliches on the part of reporters? While plugging in the same formulaic language in story after story might spare reporters the necessity of thinking, it is a disservice to the public in that it causes disparate stories to run together in a muddled whole. As for the senseless use of the word event, I assume that it is intended to make one sound more precise and knowledgeable than one actually is, except in Big Pharma commercials where it is clearly euphemistic.
In all cases, a disrespect for language is evident, and I haven't even gotten into the relatively recent and almost universal misuse of pronouns. I might comprehend what you're trying to communicate when you say, "Me and him got drunk," but what I don't know is why mere comprehension is all that matters to you. If you or someone you know teaches English, I would love to know if proper speech has officially become a thing of the past. Please, if you can, tell me.
15 comments:
Playing to the lowest common denominator? Laziness? Both?
"Playing to the lowest common denominator?"
The "lowest common denominator" being just that--common. How else to explain the election of psychopathic candidates of little intelligence? However, as you and many people in other lands might not know, Trump didn't win the vote of the majority; Trump won the vote of the "electoral college," which consists of representatives of the voting public but isn't necessarily aligned with the public vote.
I did know that Trump won the vote of the electoral college rather than the majority. Yet another thing about your country's version of democracy I don't understand. I worry that if we continue to play to the lowest level it will become more firmly entrenched (in my country too).
The 'event' phrases are used to soften the condition itself. Rather than say a record drought, for instance, to say a drought event lessens the severity of feeling that an area is in dire straits. It is similar to saying passed away instead of dead. Dead is a perfectly good word yet many feel the need to soften it to passed away to make death seem less final or something. As far as repeatedly using terms does denote laziness on the part of the speakers. Some of the terms are also meant to provoke a certain response in the listener. They think of us as cattle or sheep incapable of hearing about a situation and determining what we think for ourselves. As far as proper speech becoming a thing of the past I see many working hard to make it so even to the point of dumbing themselves down when they know better.
People get their favourite words and phrases and over use them in every sphere but we really could expect more from journalists who are supposedly experts in language.
Some of your examples are euphemisms designed to protect the president. Why doesn't that surprise me?
I also do not enjoy news anchors trying to evoke disaster or largeness of "an event" through use of panicked look and rapid speech. I am tired of it. I currently do not watch the news.
"I worry that if we continue to play to the lowest level it will become more firmly entrenched..."
But of course. We now have the technical capability to do the best reporting in all of history, but social trends prevent it from being used for that.
"The 'event' phrases are used to soften the condition itself."
I can't say you're wrong, but I know of no reason to think you're right either. All of these terms I mentioned are, in my experience, almost entirely limited to news and weather reporting. I say "almost" because I did hear one non-reporter (on one occasion) use the term "walked back," which surprised me greatly. I expect the trend to spread, however, because we humans are nothing if not imitators. For example, prior to George W. Bush, I only heard the word "folks" used on TV shows, either for comedic effect or to depict the user as ignorant. Then, Bush referred to terrorists as "folks," and damned if the trend didn't spread. Now, I rarely hear the word "people" anymore. But why take a perfectly good term like "people" and replace it with "folks"? All I can think of is that our tendency to imitate those around us grows until a critical mass is reached, after which the old word is all but forgotten. The widespread and increasing use of bad grammar is harder for me to grasp because bad grammar is demonstrably inferior. So why then do even educated people use it? Is it because good grammar is no longer taught in school, so they really don't know any better; or is it out of a desperate desire to belong? I don't know, but I think it reflects badly on my specie's sense of beauty, intelligence, and integrity. I mostly read books that were written prior to the Great Depression, so it doesn't usually come up for me, but sometimes I'll get a book from the library because I'm interested in a particular subject, and darned if, as often as not, it's so riddled with examples of bad grammar that I turn it in unread.
Note: I've gotten two pieces of spam in my last two posts, so if I get a third anytime soon, I'll be going back to comment moderation. I would hate like heck to do that, but I would hate even more for my readers to get spam put into their inboxes via my blog. Now...
"Some of your examples are euphemisms designed to protect the president"
As with Emma's comment, I can't prove you wrong, but it doesn't seem so to me. For one thing, I don't think the mainstream media or the publicly funded media that I listen to want to protect the president, yet I doubt that it would be wise to use the word "liar," because while he most certainly is a liar, the word describes intention as well as behavior, and it's better that the news media (as opposed to news commentators) stay away from doing that. I would guess that "doubled down" is the most common term that is used to describe Trump's behavior, the usual scenario being that he will say something demonstrably wrong, and repeat it even more strongly when his error is made public. Maybe you've heard about his lawyer saying that "Truth is not true," and his press secretary using the term, "alternative facts" to justify his pronouncements. Such statements go along with what commentators refer to as Trump's "assault on truth," and America having entered a "post truth world." Yet millions upon millions of people go on loving Trump. I used to think that they would eventually realize how deeply flawed he is, and then turn against him, but they haven't. I think it would take a financial recession or depression for the faithful to abandon him, the world being full of people who don't care about things like intelligence, fairness, compassion, and long-term consequences, as long as they're doing well financially.
"I also do not enjoy news anchors trying to evoke disaster or largeness of "an event" through use of panicked look and rapid speech"
I can but conclude that reporters' anguished looks, expressions of sadness, and fear mongering, have become a large part of the news because that's what sells advertising. You might recall that Cronkite had final say over what he reported, but the news anchors of today are talking heads whose words are put in their mouths according to the interests of big business (primarily big pharma), which means that the public's respect for reporters has plummeted. I don't know why the situation has changed so. Maybe it has to do with there being so many competing sources for news coverage that the networks feel forced to place the welfare of advertisers above the interests of the public. Maybe it's also because the growing prevalence of graphic soundbite-length reporting has so shortened our attention spans and so deadened our senses, that it takes an ever increasing amount of drama, raw footage, human interest stories, and emotionalism to hold our interest, none of which is related to indepth reporting. I've been wondering when the day will come that some poor weather reporter standing on the beach during a hurricane will be washed out to to sea or decapitated by flying tin. Then what? Why a lot of stories by the media about whether the media has finally gone too far, complete with graphic footage of reporters being put in mortal risk. When all is said and done, nothing will change because the public doesn't demand that anything change. We might not get what we need from the news media, but we most certainly get what we deserve based upon ratings and advertising revenue.
I hate to say it but: proper speech has officially become a thing of the past
Neither the US nor the UK election systems are truly democratic. One man one vote is democratic. The electoral college is as flawed as the UK constituency system. Neither reflects the will of the people.
As to English grammar, we have to accept American English and UK English. There are differences in spelling and meaning in each camp. I tend to dislike the word "gotten" which is perfectly correct in the US but tends to grate in the UK, certainly as far as I'm concerned. I have become used to it in the UK; I have gotten used to it in the US.
As time goes by, the dictionaries accept new words. Shakespeare created many words, some of the most beautiful phrases ever. All new words occur because of common usage, e.g. twerk is now a proper word, but not all will survive for centuries. It's a wonderful topic: words and phrases and grammar.
It depends on what you mean by "proper" -- in the past "proper" English meant what the majority of educated speakers say and write, but nowadays the "educated" part has been dropped and English is whatever the majority of its speakers say and write. Lo, how the mighty have fallen!
My own theory is that because the U.S. is supposed to be a classless society (unlike, say, Victorian England), many people don't know or care what others think and so take the path of least effort and least resistance. Why study hard to learn what is accepted when anything is accepted? Why try to lift yourselv by your own bootstraps out of the mess you are in when everyone, high or low, rich or poos, is pretty much in the same mess?
There are exceptions, of course. The Ivy League is still the Ivy League, and some people will always welcome the opportunity to look down on someone else, classless society or no.
I am rambling. But I hope you get my drift (as the iceberg said to the Titanic).
"As to English grammar, we have to accept American English and UK English. There are differences in spelling and meaning in each camp."
Philip, what I had in mind wasn't the "lift" versus "elevator," or the "encyclopediae" versus "encyclopedia" sort of thing, but atrociously bad grammar. For instance, I usually read books that are least 100 years old, but when I do happen to pick up something new, I often find usages like the following from Charles Monroe Kane's 2016 memoir, Lithium Jesus: "Me and my brother, however, went with the flow." Why would an educated man who makes his living from using words write something like that? I'm sure I don't know, but I'm embarrassed for such people. When I was in school, they would have flunked basic English composition.
Rhymes, I thought your points were very well made except that I would question the validity of, "Why study hard to learn what is accepted when anything is accepted?" in that it doesn't seem to me that anything IS accepted, but that proper usage has come to sound stilted if not downright wrong. I'm also made aghast by constant repetitions of the word "like," by substitutions of the word "folks" for the word "people," the word "inform" for the word "inspire," and so on. I've heard that the French do a far better job than we in protecting their language. If this is true, I envy them.
I must add that I hesitate to even bring all this up, because I can't be sure but what I regularly engage in errors that make my objections to other people's errors seem absurd. For example, my sister wrote that I regularly screw-up the ending of adverbs, but I've never verified this, and I can't be sure but what it's her rather than me who is in error. I also wonder if computerized spelling and grammar checks don't lead to a lot of errors. For instance, mine wanted me to hyphenate 100 years old, but I don't know that it was right.
Interesting. I agree that standards have dropped generally, but I also know that language has been evolving every decade and that which was deemed common and uncouth in the 1800's would be the very same language you use yourself at times because we can't help the evolution. We can make the best of it and use grammar to it's highest potential mind you, and I know that some 'folks' (I much prefer folks, it means the same thing but is softer, kinder), who write lay down their words in the accent and style that's around them, rather than the best English.
I can't abide this kind of malarkey - 'Set off now b4 yR L8' - it irritates me enormously, however that's purely taste. The main thing is there are enough word lovers out there, and I am positive such word lovers shall remain, who do indeed love the English language and all its quirks, and shall keep it going from the loftiest hieghts to the lowliest depths. X
Thank you for your visit to my lately-ignored blog and for your good wishes. Unfortunately, my darling cat, the last of a group of four, passed away of renal failure just hours before hurricane Irma landed in my region. His passing was peaceful but left me a bit at sea. Earlier this year, I was able to take in an older ginger cat via my vet and another client of that practice. He and I have settled into a lovely routine despite my chronic pain and back issues. On that front, there has been noticeable improvement, largely because I've some new eyes on the situation and a couple of new things to help with pain reduction. I've no idea when I'll return to regular blogging but I do appreciate your interest and wish you well, too.
"I can't abide this kind of malarkey - 'Set off now b4 yR L8' - it irritates me enormously"
I suppose it's something people enjoy playing with, but I wonder if its main purpose isn't to divide people into opposing camps--those who are "with it" and those who aren't.
"He and I have settled into a lovely routine despite my chronic pain and back issues"
There's a marijuana extract called CBD that you might try. Consumer Reports had a favorable article about it in the October issue. You might also look into whether someone in your area does lidocaine infusions, something that helps many people, although doctors don't know why. I haven't tried CBD or lidocaine infusions (I do take Ambien, oxycodone, and Neurontin), but I got as far as calling a local pot store (Amazon Organics at 541-636-4100) this week and talked to a man named David who was very helpful. He said that he takes large doses of CBD for degenerative back problems. CBD won't get you high, by the way.
Post a Comment