You don’t have to be a news junkie to tire of the overuse of certain words today in journalism. Not to mention the misuse.

Let’s consider the words “expert,” “iconic” and “disinformation.” All are a) overused, b) misused or c) used to obfuscate. Or all of the above.

“Expert” is both overused and under-defined. Journalists are trained to use the simplest, most accurate word to express an idea. So, “expert” obviously is useful. But a word can be refined down to a point where its meaning is so general it loses meaning.

“Expert” is similar to the word “facility,” which can mean anything from a basketball arena to dexterity. Too often, journalists cite simply “the experts” without showing us in what fields they are expert and, thereby, in which fields they are not.

“Listen to the experts” has become mantra for requiring vaccination and/or masks in the COVID-19 era. It has also become a red flag to skeptics who say, “Oh, yeah? Sez who?”

And that sums up the second problem: What makes one an expert? Professions have screening bodies. After years of training, a person can be certified as a neurosurgeon, an expert, by the American Board of Neurological Surgery, which is part of the American Board of Medical Specialties. That’s two mouthfuls, but next time I go under for brain surgery, I sure as hell want the one with the drill to be certified by the ABNS and ABMS.

But what makes an expert at lower occupational levels? I like the guidance of Malcolm Gladwell, who has written often and well about work. Gladwell, a Canadian-American with The New York Times and The New Yorker on his resume, figures that one must work 10,000 hours at an occupation to become fully competent.

At 40 hours a week, that’s about five years, which seems a good measure. So, it’s no surprise that many union apprenticeships are for five years. By then, one is an expert. How many Fox “News” hosts have researched viruses for 10,000 hours?

Moving on, some words start out as misusages, and the misuse becomes so common that even the Websters of the world bow in deference to the new usage. Case in point: Warren G. Harding, among our most corrupt presidents, built his 1920 campaign on the slogan, “Return to normalcy.” In time, “normalcy” became accepted, although apparently not by any English-speakers other than Americans. Most prefer, as I do, “normality.”

A similar thing is happening with “iconic.” Dictonary.com defines icon as “a sign or representation that stands for its object.” Or, a symbol or emblem, as Merriam-Webster has it. Iconic, then, would be “emblematic” or “symbolic.”

Last week, National Public Radio described comedian Louie Anderson as “iconic.” It was Anderson’s obituary, and I intend no disdain toward him. But did Anderson stand as an emblem or symbol (icon) of something, an idea or style? He wasn’t iconic. Just funny.

Journalists long have pounced on “in” words and beat them to death. “Impact” was once a noun that Merriam-Webster defines as “impinging or striking, especially of one body against another.” Now it is used to mean “affect,” as in, “This vote will impact every taxpayer.” Meaning it will affect every taxpayer. As with “impact,” so with “iconic,” to the point that NPR and others use “iconic” to mean merely widely known or famous.

Most grating to me is “disinformation” because it is being used as a euphemism. As with most euphemisms, it is longer and obscures the word it is masking, which is “lie.”

Of late, The Washington Post and NPR are using “lie” rather than disinformation. You’ve already twigged to what I’m getting at here. A former president has been spreading the lie that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

The disproof is in the pudding. On Dec. 14, BuzzFeed News noted that “Trump and his allies have lost 59 times in court since Nov. 3.” That’s 59 times in 41 days. What a loser!

But most other media insisted until quite recently on using “disinformation.” Once in a while, they shorten it to falsehood, which has five fewer letters. This helps ease one complaint, that the word “disinformation” is too long.

Finally, though, The Post and NPR are starting to use the correct word for the crusade against the election. “Lie.” It is a just-plain, bald-faced lie that Joe Biden did not win both the popular and electoral votes. I’m waiting for The New York Times and the Associated Press to start calling a lie what it is. A lie.

Not to endorse President Biden’s performance. The plight of Afghani women alone makes me doubt the caliber of his performance. The failure to foresee inflation, as well.

If the performance doesn’t improve, we’ll have two opportunities to register our displeasure. Come November, we can vote out his party members in the House and Senate and come 2024, we can vote for someone else for president. Preferably not a liar.

Bob Neal has written for more than 10,000 hours, has farmed more than 10,000 hours and taught more than 10,000 hours. Still, he’s reluctant to say he’s expert at anything. Neal can be reached at turkeyfarm@myfairpoint.net.

Copy the Story Link