It’s election year, which means that the national media are dusting off their maps and trying once again to figure out exactly where Ohio is. You will note that I said “media are,” not “media is.” That’s because I’m a member of a secret organization dedicated to the preservation of endangered portions of the language. “Media” is plural — the singular is “medium” (as in “The Athens News is an unparalleled advertising medium.”) Likewise the word “data.” If someone says “that data is not available,” he or she may know whether or not those data are available, but he or she is illiterate.
A convergence of recent events brings this to mind. The first is the death a couple weeks ago of Edwin Newman, a former NBC newsman of considerable grace and skill. It was more than 35 years ago that Newman recruited me to aforementioned secret organization. That’s when I read his excellent best-selling book, Strictly Speaking. In it, he took the view that America may well destroy the English language. The problem, as he saw it, was word usage that tends to hide rather than promote clear meaning. (A good example is the current cliche, “inflection point.” Does anyone know what this means? Can anyone defend its appearance in everyday conversation? I didn’t think so.)
The second converging event is that it’s political season (well, more than usual), which means that politicians are talking (well, more than usual), and that means that language designed to obscure rather than illuminate is more common than usual.
For instance, the other day I heard a politician use the word “we” and suddenly I recognized what that word means when it is uttered by a seeker of political office. You may have heard of something called “the royal ‘we’” — it is what British monarchs have traditionally used when speaking of themselves; the most famous being Queen Victoria’s “We are not amused.” Perhaps related, perhaps not, is “the editorial ‘we,’” a quaint tradition now disappearing in which a writer referring to himself or herself would write “we” instead of “I.” There is the common “we,” in which the speaker or writer refers to a group including himself or herself.
Then there is “the political ‘we.’” This does not mean “me.” It does not mean “us.” It means “you.” When a politician says, “We must tighten our belts,” the real meaning is, “You must tighten your belts.” When a politician says, “We must all pull together,” the meaning is actually, “You must all pull together, in the direction I specify.”
Watch for it this season. It will make the endless speeches and commercials a lot more amusing.
There is reason for general crankiness about the state of the language. How often in the last year have you heard the phrase “old school”? What does it — brace yourself for another — “bring to the table”? It apparently refers to things that took place or were done in a certain way — sit down, because what follows is the most odious of all — “back in the day.” What day was that? Or is this cliche meant for use only at night, and, if so, why is there not a corresponding, “back in the night”?
Marketing is in many ways like politics. We are now inundated with products that we are expected to embrace because they are “multi-grain.” I think that this arises from the attack on wheat in recent years. First it was decided, apparently accurately, that whole-wheat products are better for one than non-whole wheat products are. Fair enough. Then it became trendy for people to decide they are “gluten intolerant,” which is true only of the very small portion of the population that suffers from celiac disease. That was followed by “soy intolerance” and a collection of others. Doesn’t “multi-grain” mean “contains at least one grain you’ve been saying you can’t tolerate”?
One of my current favorites takes place during cereal advertisements on television. After the cereal is praised for its sugary goodness, bright artificial colors, and so on, there’s a very brief picture during which the announcer says, “Part of this complete breakfast.” The picture shows a plate with bacon and eggs and toast (multi-grain, no doubt) and some fruit or orange juice. This suggests that the breakfast would be no less nutritional if the cereal were eliminated. Why do they do this? I suspect that lawyers are involved.
Watching the baseball playoffs I learned that the “sacrifice” has become the “productive out.” I could go on and on — it’s just endless.
Nor can we turn to the learned among us for guidance. They are often the worst offenders. Weather forecasters no longer speak of tornadoes, they talk of “tornadic activity.” We no longer have thunderstorms — now we have “thunderstorm activity,” as if it’s what the kindergartners will do after their nap. Newscasters latch on to the latest cliches in the forlorn hope that they will seem trendy. Do we want trendy newscasters, or simply accurate ones?
It is a losing battle, and maybe it should be, but that doesn’t mean it oughtn’t be fought. Of course the language will always grow and change. But by challenging attempts to lard the lingo with cliche and silliness, we can keep it from becoming quite as fat and gaseous.
Dennis E. Powell is crackpot-at-large to Open for Business. Powell was an award-winning reporter in New York and elsewhere before moving to Ohio and becoming a full-time crackpot. You can reach him at dep@drippingwithirony.com.