YEAH FOR STYLE
In this day and age of
ambiguous TV news reporting ( Is it or isn't it "Fake News" we ask
ourselves? ), there are still aspects that are clear as a bell: some
correspondents have a distinct style that can't be mistaken for anything but
what it is. Their use of words and syntax is consistent, their manner is
predictable, their delivery is distinct. We don't expect Judy Woodruff ( PBS )
to be loud, brash and emotional; Sean Hannity (FOX NEWS) doesn't suddenly start
to cry over a story and become soft-spoken and gentle; Lawrence O'Donnell (
MSNBC ) doesn't begin to ask questions employing only single sentences and
simple words. Jeff Glor (CBS ) doesn't commence to deliver op- eds at the top
of his show.
Perhaps that's a good thing.
News consumers like to count on a few things. For example, we don't like
surprises, meaning abrupt changes from our journalists in matters of style. We
may not always believe what they say, but we believe who they are. That's not
to say we find them necessarily likable all the time, but they are authentic.
At least on the air while they are working.
Of course, individual style
is also determined by the media outlet that the correspondent is associated
with. Judy Woodruff is a smart, objective reporter who is counted on to stick
to the facts; she never would be nasty to anyone she disagrees with. Her guests
follow suit, having a similar serious manner.
"Serious" would
characterize her viewers as well: educated and caring like PBS. At 72, Ms.
Woodruff seems to represent the respected aunt among journalists. Yet her
delivery belies some of the"scholarly" perceptions we have
about her. Her presentations are straightforward with no complicated vocabulary
and syntax. The questions she asks are usually simple, short sentences and
often lack much context. Emphasis is on her interviewees, not on her own
expertise or opinion. As a public speaker, we would label her as having little
animation. No matter. She can be a breath of fresh air when compared to
Sean Hannity and Lawrence O'Donnell.
Consider Mr. Hannity, who as
a conservative, follows Republican principles at FOX NEWS with boldness,
toughness and at times, nastiness. If you agree with his politics, you applaud
him with vigor. He wastes no words or his opinion, beginning his broadcast a
few nights ago with, "The border bill that President Trump signed was
awful. The President knows it's awful." Then it's on to other insults
about various people he doesn't like, naming names, dates and details.
Obviously, Mr. Hannity's format is akin to an op-ed, and in that context it is
somewhat tolerable for those who disagree with him. This critic would like to
listen to his sharp and often emotional words delivered at a less aggressive
pace. The results may be surprising.
Mr. O'Donnell delivers op-eds
as well but differs from Mr. Hannity, not only in his politics (which are
liberal like his network, MSNBC) but in his emphasis, too. His text is logical,
intelligent and yet also emotional. That emotional tone comes from his ideas,
whereas Mr. Hannity's text is predicated on"loaded" words, not ideas.
Of all the TV journalists, this critic considers Mr. O'Donnell the best
writer and the most eloquent. And no wonder. He wrote several episodes for
"The West Wing," an award-winning show that was also marked as
having superior scripts and dialogue. Of course, Mr. O'Donnell doesn't
keep his sentences short like "The West Wing" did ( especially in its
openings). His news commentary, instead, has longer sentences and more
complicated syntax than most anchors' text. But it's attention-getting and
tantalizing, nonetheless. It also helps that Mr. O'Donnell was an aide to
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We feel he should know his stuff. And he does.
Finally, there's Jeff Glor,
the youngest anchor ( at 43 ) who reminds us of the boy-next-door. He's also
bright, spirited, and pleasant like his network, CBS, who won't
annoy the viewers. His newscast contains many colorful pictures and
striking montages of the day's important stories, and for a half-hour show,
moves quickly as it should. Mr. Glor's comments are short, lively and filled
with upbeat expressions, like "You've got to be kidding."
Mr. Glor's style doesn't
make people mad, only happy. We need a few of those kinds of newscasts, too,
don't we?
GUEST BLOG BY RUBY BARESCH
The Best of the Best
“Americans specially love superlatives.
The phrases ‘biggest in the world,’ ‘finest in the world’ are on all
lips.” So wrote Isabella Bird in 1873. I
doubt that anyone has actually determined that we use them more than others do,
but having a president who deals in superlatives has raised my awareness to it
and I wonder if the media also loves them.
Weather persons on TV seem always eager to
tell us where today’s weather ranks in history. I’m waiting for someone to say
that today is the hottest/coldest/wettest/driest day since--yesterday.
Seriously, when weather was last reported as hot (or whatever) as it is today
is a bit of trivia. In contrast, when the NY Times recently reported that 2018
was the 4th warmest year on record and 4 of the 5 hottest were in
the last 5 years, this was useful information. It was accompanied by a graph
that went back to the earliest records which, of course a local TV weather
forecast could not easily do.
I think every story, print and TV, made it
a point to say that Trump’s government shutdown was the longest in our history,
as soon as it passed the previous record by a day. They did not, so far as I
noticed, say what the previous record had been. The story became, rightly, how
various segments of the population were affected by it as it went on and on,
with no relation to the length of other shutdowns. But I kept reading &
hearing that it was the longest.
Likewise the reporting on Jeff Bezos,
founder and CEO of Amazon. Whether it was his divorce, his extramarital affair,
his erotic emails, his dealing with the tabloid press, his wealth was always
mentioned: the NYT says he’s the richest person in the world, while the
Guardian says the richest man. (The latter leaves open the possibility of an
even richer woman. Who’s counting, I wonder?) Of course his wealth made it
possible for him to say, effectively, Publish and Be Damned when threatened
with extortion.
Speaking of Amazon, a Times business
headline reads “The Most Valuable American Company? Depends on the Time of
Day.” Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and Alphabet (Google’s parent) seem to be
jockeying for the position; one morning Apple had it and by closing it was
Microsoft. The graph and article provided did not convince me that who was on
top at any given moment was more significant than the fact that these are the
“richest” companies in the country.
Overall, I did not find as much irrelevant
(to me) use of superlatives in print media as I expected when I started paying
attention to it. I could not really track TV and radio coverage so this is a
very limited observation. It still seems to me that I hear superlatives a lot
more than I used to.
I’m wondering if it’s a human quality;
maybe we all want to be the best even as grownups. But there’s quite a
difference between wanting to be the best and claiming to be so without any
reality to back it up. As Trump says he is the healthiest president ever, had
the biggest crowd at his inauguration, is the hardest working president in our
history, and so on, while the facts say otherwise, I think of Muhammad Ali.
When he said he was the greatest, he had earned the title World Champion of
Boxing. That’s the difference.
The power of best is easily diminished
with overuse, and social media users are amplifying it. In a recent episode of
the children’s cartoon Dinosaur Train, our little friends tried to help a
tortoise find his BBF: best best friend. Also a couple of characters had this
conversation leaving the school cafeteria:
A. That was the best lunch ever!
B. You say that every day.
A. It was the best lunch ever today!
Speaking of superlatives, Trump may top it
all: he says, “I know words. I have the best words.”
Ruby
Baresch
Comments
Post a Comment