« The column that changed television forever »
Friday, October 17, 2008 at 12:27PM The episodic adventure-show "24" was referred to on a teaser commercial recently as "the series that changed the face of television". Since I have never seen a complete episode of “24” I think I can stand in as an unbiased observer when I say that television’s face looks remarkably similar to how it did before “24” existed. Granted, 2001 was an eon ago (in our current understanding of eons), but the changes that we have seen in the seven years since could likely be attributed to other factors commonly known as “the passage of time” and “everything else”. Their statement may therefore fall into one of two common logical fallacies; either 1) post hoc ergo propter hoc, or 2) not giving a shit about what you just said.
It is one of the many fine examples of how hyperbole has become the standard, shock has become the norm, and something is only worthwhile if we can see, right now, how it has a lasting impact into perpetuity. This is a trend that has undoubtedly changed the face of communication.
“Viewer discretion” is now advised, through an ominous voiceover, on "House", "Fringe", and "Kitchen Nightmares", all shows on the FOX Network. (This particular random sample is used because I happened to be watching the NFC games last Sunday.) The “viewer discretion” tag is a great advertisement; piquing your interest by letting you know that this show may push the bounds of what you consider acceptable network television. The last one is a cooking show, by the way. That’s right, a cooking show… that tests your social turpitude.
Granted FOX is the network that has taken the maxim "if it bleeds it leads" to a new level on the nightly news. If you get your local news from the FOX channel, you are likely doing it because you feel as though, if you don't, your garbage man and/or your municipal government and/or your grocery store will knife you in your sleep, steal your identity, or corrupt your legacy through a subversive use of social networking sites. So maybe my sample over-exemplifies the case of overstating the case. Hey, I’d gladly accept a grant to hire some statisticians and study this further. Otherwise, if you want science, watch Nova.
If we wish to find examples of capricious use of superlatives infecting a higher brow, we need look no further than the final presidential debates Wednesday evening. At one point, Sen Obama [D-IL] described his running mate Sen Biden [D-DE] as “one of the finest public servants that has served in this country.” Not a great public servant. Not even one of the best currently serving. Oh no. One of the best ever. Any room on Mt Rushmore for Sen Biden’s star-quality chompers?
Sen McCain [R-AZ] is not immune to overzealous description either, nearly catching himself in a constitutional impossibility. When asked about how he would qualify a nominee to the Supreme Court, Sen McCain said he “will find the best people in the world,” before quickly correcting himself and noting that a nominee of his would likely be American. Comportable reality occasionally has its victories.
(Maybe we should have watched CNN in order to chart the public’s reaction to description unbound on a running ticker. Alas, the Mrs and I generally catch the debates on PBS; robbing us of the dynamic sentiment of Ohioans, but soothing us with the luxurious calm of Jim Lehrer, and those eyes that stab you directly in your ignorant soul.)
The English language has an economy of its own, and could be on the verge of hyperinflation. When you abuse devices such as superlatives and hyperbole, the market for description becomes overpriced. Eventually, words become worthless. If there is no confidence backing up your description of something, people will start expecting more aggrandizing descriptions for everything. Let’s look into the future of description inflation and see what a basic conversation might be like in 50 years.
---------------------------------
Setting: The year is 2058. A woman has just walked in the door to her house after a day at the office.
Wife: Honey? I made the unbelievable trek home!
Husband: That must have rivaled the lowest levels of hell! How was your day? Did you have that conference call with those guys from GE-Googlecenture?
Wife: Yeah, It was mind-bending! They are probably some of the greatest implementation impresarios that I have ever spoken with in my entire career!
Husband: Unbelievable!
Wife: I know! How was your day?
Husband: It was pretty transcendental! I think I may have completed one of the most gut-wrenching cycles of dish-washing that this house has ever seen!
Wife: That’s phenomenal! Did you pick up the dry cleaning?
---------------------------------
Is this the road that you want to travel down? I should say not. This is why I am calling on television to dial back the hyperbole and the shock that has lost a great deal of its connotative value. I know. It seems far too easy to pick on television, but we can’t deny how ubiquitous it is. It has become a recognized standard in promulgation from the important to the entertaining. If you totaled up all the hours of activity for a kid between the ages of 5 and 18, he has spent 1.86 years in school and 2.44 years in front of the television. (This doesn’t even take into account the 12-30% national drop-out rate, depending on what you believe to be more accurate.) So I think we can safely say that television is the most damaging influence on any planet in the galaxy; maybe the known universe.
Is this an unreasonable request to ask TV to lead our language out of hyperboleflation? We ask our athletes to be role-models for children. We ask our politicians to be role-models for our citizens. Why would we not ask one of the more prolific disseminators of information in our time to be a role-model for our language? I mean, it’s never going to live up to that request, but at least we asked. Once we’ve asked, then we can more justifiably saddle it with blame.
Coming together in a crisis is one of the oft-quoted upsides of Americana. However, it has a downside unto itself. It is hard to cull action out of Americans unless something has reached a crisis stage. That whole idea of preserving things for future generations is nice PR, but we are reluctant to actually do something unless it helps ourselves. More than just a macro example of hyperboleflation, it is the continuing extension of the management ethic to want to effect measurable change in the here and now. So, despite the fact that this is not a crisis, I am calling on all Americans to respond to this crisis.
My fellow Americans, hyperbole is killing our children.
Reader Comments (1)
this was seriously an amazing post. i haven't read anything so mind-blowing in all of today.