"We go right for the top shelf with our words now. We don't think about how we talk; we just say the right-to-the-fucking... 'Dude it was amazing!' It was 'amazing'? Really, you were 'amazed'? You were 'amazed' by a basket of chicken wings? Really?"
Is it just me or does it seem as though we've become incapable of discussing topics with any kind of verbal caution or reasoned analysis? Alright, perhaps it's a bit ironic that I'm beginning a post about hyperbole with such an incendiary statement, but when it comes to certain types of discussions, I'm beginning to feel that it's justified.
It seems as though there are way too many articles about perfectly normal situations written as though said situation was taken to some insane theoretical extreme. If a popular company has bad quarter, all of the headlines start with 'is it the beginning of the end for [INSERT CORPORATION HERE]?'. Similarly, upon introduction of a new product, all headlines will read, 'Will product X kill [INSERT DOMINANT COMPANY]'s product Y?'. A political candidate makes a faux-pas, and everyone immediately asks whether their campaign is 'DOOMED', and so on.
What kills me is the lack of empiricism underlying these statements. We have abundant experience telling us that if something seems to good to be true, it probably is ('true' being defined here in terms of what will generate the best news copy). Similarly, things are almost never as bad as they first seem. I understand that you have to sell magazines or clicks, and as Drew Curtis of fark.com pointed out in his book, there's a lot of incentive to manipulate headlines. But this sort of crazy exaggeration extends far beyond the headlines into the body of the work itself.
I think that one big part of it is the rise of news aggregator blogs, like Gawker's garbage, TMZ, or Yahoo (sorry I won't provide links to this stuff). I've already complained before about how these places have fallen prey to eschewing journalistic ethics in order to solicit 'clicks', and they're certainly guilty of making mountains out of mole hills in terms of headlines. But I don't think that the entire blame can be laid at their feet - it's a broader cultural phenomenon. I think we've all been somewhat seduced by media that uses hyperbole and often comical extremism to make points, but enough is enough.
As I've mentioned over and over again, I listen to a lot of podcasts. Well, I should say that I have listened to a lot of podcasts because I'm in a continuous process of culling my regular rotating list of shows. A lot of this is simply because most podcasts are not very good1. But I've also become very sensitive to the overuse of hyperbole in current event shows. Every single thing cannot possibly be one of the following:
a) The best thing ever.
b) The worst thing ever.
c) Revolutionary. (or is that 'Resolutionary'?)
d) The death of modern [INSERT CONCEPT HERE]2.
e) A harbinger of the apocalypse.
f) [INSERT WORD HERE]gate.
You know what? I think that we are basically living in the midst of [INSERT WORD HERE]gate, wherein every random stupid thing that happens is being directly equated to a national scandal that shook the foundations of people's confidence in democratically elected government. Remember the problems with the iPhone 4 antenna - Antennagate. Or how about 'Nipplegate'? I need to point out that the above link to the list of 'gate' controversies is nowhere near exhaustive in terms of how often I've seen/heard this used on blogs and podcasts.
As Louis CK asks in the bit quoted above, where do we go from here? We're already describing banality with linguistic extremes, so how do we describe events that are legitimate outliers? I don't think that this is the end of the world or that it's all downhill from here (though that's what the subjects of this rant would probably say themselves). Rather it's simply that I'm being pushed towards a more professional style of communication not provided by every random source, and that I'm willing to pay for it.
A little reasoned analysis would be appreciated, even if it's notoriously difficult to argue the middle ground.
1The best podcasts are those that learn from and apply the techniques that make good radio. There has to be good chemistry among the hosts/participants, good quality to the recording and production, and interesting topics. Some people have the 'knack' while others do not, unfortunately. It's very much an Anna Karenina problem in that an otherwise great podcast can be ruined for me if people are continuously being dropped by Skype, or one host obviously has no idea what they're talking about, or if people on the 'cast are obviously distracted and doing other things while recording. It's tough to judge whether a cast will be decent before trying it out, because sometimes the most amateur (in the literal sense) efforts are amazing, while big professional productions fall utterly flat and vice-versa.
2As an example of 'd', may I present exhibit A: Katy Perry unfriends Russell Brand on Twitter. Hearalded as the death of journalism.