WORDS. EXCLUSIVE!!!

Fight: Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.

Crisis: A time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger.

Exclusive: Excluding or not admitting other things; an item or story published or broadcast by only one source.

Almost every evening in this “unprecedented” past year, my wife and I have watched the national network news at 6:30 p.m. We are therefore familiar with the side effects of medication for psoriasis, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome and other ailments that are advertised for the presumed audience.

At 7 p.m. we turn, with relief, to Judy Woodruff and her colleagues on the PBS Newshour. When the “breaking news” is big enough, we’re likely to go to CNN and/or C-Span which I also watch on weekends for Book TV. On the whole we avoid the “if it bleeds, it leads” featured on most local news reports. Our phones tell us about the weather.

One of the legacies of the past five years of American history has been verbal hyperbole, the “dangers,” “risks” and “tests” and the fights, crises and exclusives that dominate rhetoric, especially in journalism and social media. This is all intended to make us fearful, angry to the point of outrage or at least intrigued enough to pay, one way or another, for what we are getting.

On cable news, we are buying things whether we use them or not. For example, ask an audience of New York Times or New Yorker readers whether they have a subscription to Fox News, and you will get a dismissive chuckle. The fact is that anyone with basic cable is paying for Fox News.

This is certainly not a new feature of news, entertainment or politics. All history is abundant with portrayals that are lurid, bloody and provocative enough to be memorable. Still the case can be made that the era of Donald Trump and social media have been accelerants for the use of “shock” expressions as an omnipresent means of communication.

One factor for this is the dominance of the attention economy. The more people who are watching or subscribing to content, the bigger the revenue that results. Newspapers and magazines that use to be subsidized mainly by advertising now need “engagement” (i.e., paying readers) to foot the bills. Television news has always been a mix of ratings and sales pitches and still is. Netflix et al. are flush with vast audiences that pay monthly in ever greater amounts.

The removal in the Reagan administration of the “fairness doctrine” from political broadcasts and the growth of cable that loosened language and sexual conventions has been a major selling point for audiences. In books, the bestseller lists carry titles that incorporate “fuck” for purposes that are well beyond copulation.

This process is not going to be reversed. “Cancel culture” is a synonym for censorship and the restraints on free speech. But let’s just consider the impact on news. The new Biden administration appears to have a strategic vision of emphasizing competence and results over political advantage and sensation. Of course, conflict is inevitable in public life when there is almost always more than one way to describe an issue. Competence is not the same thing as “boring.”

Not everything is a “battle,” not everything will result in a “clash” and not everything is a crisis. I wrote a piece last year (link) about how the notion that “your drapes are going to kill you” undermines accounts of our real crises — like the COVID-19 pandemic that has killed a half million people and counting and sickened tens of millions more. When you repeat a word often enough — say, pickle or exclusive — it loses true power and can become ridiculous.

The challenge is in the way we present news and information that we really need to have, understand and appreciate. We can’t manage rhetoric back to some mythic past of more reasonable uses. What we can do is recognize that the frenzy of the Trump era and the rawness of social media language aren’t the only way to get people’s attention. There is considerable impact in facts, good writing and thoughtful judgement.

Our addiction to excitement may be very good for business. It is not, however, I would “exclusively” contend good for the soul.