Being a certified curmudgeon and a professor of pontifical vituperation, I tend to notice things like unnecessary word repetition, and lately I’ve become extraordinarily irritated at the overuse, misuse, and often downright stupid inclusion of unnecessary words and silly phrases on radio, TV and in videos.
For example, when did it become a rule that every answer and question during an interview had to begin with or include the totally useless word “So?”
“So, when did you become aware of the odd sex life of the male, Ethiopian cockroach?”
“So, I was sitting on a bench in the park one day, when a male, Ethiopian cockroach approached me and demanded sex.”
“Really? That’s, odd. So tell me more.”
“So, I was minding my own business, when this ugly little bug scurried up my leg, climbed on my shoulder and started whispering sweet nothings in my ear.”
Seriously, folks, listen to any interview nowadays, and you’re liable to hear the unnecessary word “so” dozens of times. And if they removed it, not only would that irritating earworm go away, but nothing whatsoever would be lost. Read the above exchange without it and you'll see what I mean.
And whatever happened to “You’re welcome.”? My mother always told me that when somebody thanks you, the polite response was “You’re welcome.” But today, no one being interviewed acknowledges the host’s thanks with this simple, courteous response. Instead, they all say “Thanks for having me,” as if they’d just been had. And in the case of a female, that sounds, you know, a little bit lewd. These guests are supposedly intelligent folks: experts, professors, researchers, politicians, famous authors, and so on. If they decide not to say “You’re welcome,” you’d think at least one of them could come up with something that doesn’t parrot every other interviewee on the planet.
Finally, there’s the oft-repeated and incredibly dumb sounding term “moderate-to-severe.” We constantly hear this silly word grouping in the commercials Big Pharma airs for their latest miracle drugs. Apparently the executives who approve these ads (the guys who are so smart they make a gazillion dollars a week) are unaware that only an illiterate nincompoop would speak that way in real life.
“My moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis—irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhea, depression, overactive bladder—” are words that would never cross the lips of any person with half a brain. Think about it, have you ever said or heard anyone say “moderate-to-severe” when describing a medical condition? For that matter, have you ever heard any sane person speak out loud about these embarrassing maladies?
And if that isn’t bad enough to make you cringe, after they show you scenes of tranquil nature hikes or sea-and-surf intimacies, while a sincere-sounding voiceover tells you how wonderful and effective their drug is, they point out that it can cause everything from brain hemorrhages to massive heart attacks, limb detachment, and terminal cancer.
For example, when did it become a rule that every answer and question during an interview had to begin with or include the totally useless word “So?”
“So, when did you become aware of the odd sex life of the male, Ethiopian cockroach?”
“So, I was sitting on a bench in the park one day, when a male, Ethiopian cockroach approached me and demanded sex.”
“Really? That’s, odd. So tell me more.”
“So, I was minding my own business, when this ugly little bug scurried up my leg, climbed on my shoulder and started whispering sweet nothings in my ear.”
Seriously, folks, listen to any interview nowadays, and you’re liable to hear the unnecessary word “so” dozens of times. And if they removed it, not only would that irritating earworm go away, but nothing whatsoever would be lost. Read the above exchange without it and you'll see what I mean.
And whatever happened to “You’re welcome.”? My mother always told me that when somebody thanks you, the polite response was “You’re welcome.” But today, no one being interviewed acknowledges the host’s thanks with this simple, courteous response. Instead, they all say “Thanks for having me,” as if they’d just been had. And in the case of a female, that sounds, you know, a little bit lewd. These guests are supposedly intelligent folks: experts, professors, researchers, politicians, famous authors, and so on. If they decide not to say “You’re welcome,” you’d think at least one of them could come up with something that doesn’t parrot every other interviewee on the planet.
Finally, there’s the oft-repeated and incredibly dumb sounding term “moderate-to-severe.” We constantly hear this silly word grouping in the commercials Big Pharma airs for their latest miracle drugs. Apparently the executives who approve these ads (the guys who are so smart they make a gazillion dollars a week) are unaware that only an illiterate nincompoop would speak that way in real life.
“My moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis—irritable bowel syndrome, diarrhea, depression, overactive bladder—” are words that would never cross the lips of any person with half a brain. Think about it, have you ever said or heard anyone say “moderate-to-severe” when describing a medical condition? For that matter, have you ever heard any sane person speak out loud about these embarrassing maladies?
And if that isn’t bad enough to make you cringe, after they show you scenes of tranquil nature hikes or sea-and-surf intimacies, while a sincere-sounding voiceover tells you how wonderful and effective their drug is, they point out that it can cause everything from brain hemorrhages to massive heart attacks, limb detachment, and terminal cancer.
Yes, and the one that I have observed in recent years spreading like the measles in uninoculated sixth graders is where they add a superfluous pronoun after the subject of a sentence: "So, President Trump, he once again started his morning with a flurry of tweets aimed at House Democrats." I remember hearing it for the first time by a CNN talking head maybe six or seven years ago (maybe more, since it's been a long time since I dumped cable)
ReplyDeleteSince then, I hear it predominantly on my local newscasts, where ALL the talking heads seem to be doing it, almost constantly I don't know if they're just parroting or whether some news director has handed down an edict so they all sound more "folksy" or what. But it's making me crazy. Broadcast news people always complain that they have only so many minutes to fit it all in, yet they waste enormous amounts of time, between superfluous words and useless "happy talk" BS chitchat between anchors.
The other one is use of the word "guy" instead of just man. Most often this is used to describe a crime suspect. And it seems to occur in about 75-80 percent of references to criminal suspects. Almost every story I see now, whether the suspect is identified or not. It comes across as demeaning, which is, of course contrary to actual journalistic practice.
"Guy" is used quite sparingly in other references to male news subjects, and if it is, it comes up in humorous or feature type stories. It really shouldn't be used at all, but oh, well! And they wonder why news is disappearing.
As you suggest, I think these things are communicable, like viruses: one announcer or celebrity hears another doing or saying something, they pick it up, and eventually it spreads across the entire spectrum of broadcasting. And, boy, do I ever agree with you about the inane, "happy talk" chit-chat. In my opinion, local newscasts in general have gone downhill, at least from the standpoint of actually reporting the news in brief, exact detail, which is what I want. I don't have a lot of extra time these days to wade through all the irrelevant crap.
DeleteThis (happy talk) has been going on since I was in college. In fact, I was on the staff of a journalism student-produced journalism review that included an article on that very subject. I hadn’t heard that term before our mentors suggested it as a subject for the journal.
ReplyDeleteBut the practice has just gotten worse, in direct proportion to the dumbing down of America. You may recall a book by the late Steve Allen from that era called “Dumbth” in which he observes the process in real time.
I do remember that book, and I agree about the dumbing down. This is most evident right now in at least a third of our electorate and so-called leaders, who seem to believe in anything but provable facts. By the way, I I think I've accomplished a bit toward getting that subscribe problem fixed. I still need to work on it, but if you go to the top of the Category list at the upper right of the page and click on AA-Subscribe, it should come up with a form to fill out. This should sign you up to receive e-mail notifications whenever a new post appears. The AA is so it will always appear at the top of the list, but I can probably figure a way to fix that as well.
ReplyDeleteThis (happy talk) has been going on since I was in college. In fact, I was on the staff of a journalism student-produced journalism review that included an article on that very subject. I hadn’t heard that term before our mentors suggested it as a subject for the journal.
ReplyDeleteBut the practice has just gotten worse, in direct proportion to the dumbing down of America. You may recall a book by the late Steve Allen from that era called “Dumbth” in which he observes the process in real time.
And I certainly would agree that the quality of journalism has declined from its peak, possibly in the Watergate era, when I was studying it. I think some of that can be blamed, at least in TV news, on the moving of the news divisions under the umbrella of corporate profit centers. Previously they were independent and weren’t expected to be as highly profitable as the entertainment divisions. Now they battle for ratings and compete for resources to fund real investigative journalism. Reporters are lazier and not very aggressive in their questioning. They don’t seem as well informed on the subjects they cover, so they can’t call their interviewees on BS as often. They allow false equivalencies by simply interviewing someone on both sides of an issue regardless of their expertise or veracity, and think they’ve done their job “objectively.”
Analyses I’ve read suggest this is often corporate driven, to keep sponsors happy, and indirectly, stockholders, and the corporate masters, too, as their fingers are in a lot of the pies that reporters ought to be slicing into.
And there’s the FCC fairness doctrine and the now defunct equal time rule, both of which used to keep things somewhat in line. The abolishment of the equal time rule opened the floodgates of right-wing talk radio, and gave us the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. Thanks, Ronnie Raygun!
Besides putting us on the road to massive deregulation of everything, Ronnie also ushered in the new era of Greed Is Good. That, of course, led to stockholders as God and profits at the expense everything else — including journalism.
And that’s why Boeing 737-800s are crashing! (Not because of bad journalism, but because of lax regulations and relying on business to police itself in an era of corporate greed not seen since before the Great Depression.)
Thanks! I’ll check it out. I’m afraid my comments are getting as long as your posts . . .
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the length of your comments. As for the rest, it's all true and it has been pissing me off for decades. Unfortunately, when you add in the Internet and social media, the problems are exponentially exacerbated. I can barely stand to watch the news nowadays, and that's coming from a lifelong news junkie.
ReplyDelete