Hey, Eugene, Let's Throw "...Under the Bus..." Under the Bus

I didn't want to have to do this, but I feel compelled to take a moment in order to wonder aloud (or, at any rate, in writing) why in the world an alarming percentage of U.S. national media figures are using the catch-phrase "...thrown under the bus..." to an alarming extent of late.

In the last two days, I have seen about an hour-and-a-half of national and cable news coverage in total (at various times during the early morning and evening), and the coverage I have seen has been on several networks: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and one of the three network news outlets. (I tend to watch very little network news, but when I do I try to shift between the big three networks so that I get a taste of what they're each reporting once or twice per week; this time around it was CBS.) In that span of time, I heard the phrase "...thrown under the bus..." no less than thirty times.

Now I know that some might suggest that it's quite natural to hear such a phrase uttered in a news cycle that includes the fact that Senator Obama seemed to have finally severed completely his ties with his former pastor, Revered Jeremiah Wright. It might be suggested, for instance, that the phrase would naturally be used in the following manner: "Today, Senator Obama finally threw Reverend Wright under the bus," which is to suggest that Senator Obama has finally had enough of the cantankerous preacher.

I take the point, but it astounds me that ostensibly-intelligent "pundit" types, many of whom have written lengthy books about the political or cultural issues of the day, would almost all choose to use the same quickly-ageing catch-phrase quite soon after someone else has used it. It suggests that one of two things is going on, the first being that these pundits have apparently bought wholesale into the notion that they need to use generic phrases in order to "fit in" with today's viewing audience. (I find this hard to believe, given that the pundits on MSNBC, the news outlet for the nerdiest of political junkies--a group of which I admit to being a member--must know that people are going to understand them if they vary their vocabulary, if only as an antidote to the banality of catch-phrase repetition, from time to time.)

The other possible reason for the recent obsessive use of this boring (yet weirdly brutal) phrase is that these media folks are so constantly caught up in their own cliquey groups that they don't see how narrow their topics of discussion are becoming...and therefore how confined and constrained (and just plain dull) the language they use to describe these topics is becoming.

If this group of people is part of what is meant by the term "chatty classes," we ought to either re-define the word "chatty" or, more to the point, come up with a new term to describe them, such as "vocabularly-challenged but nonetheless talkative classes."

Eugene Robinson (the Washington Post columnist and MSNBC political analyst, not the American football player) seems to me to be intelligent, open-minded, and not overly influenced by emotional appeals so much as interested in intellectual appeals. He also seems to focus roundtable political discussions on their broader societal implications, and therefore away from point-scoring "Gotcha'!"-moments. I think he's a smart guy. So I will send my blog-o-sphere appeal to him, in the hopes that he can get his co-workers to see sense on this issue:

29 April, 2008

Mr. Robinson,

Sir, please consider doing all that you can to get your colleagues to throw "...under the bus..." under the bus for, say, six months or so. This moratorium will provide everyone with some critical distance in order to evaluate whether this insanely-popular phrase is really worth uttering on a consistent basis. (My sense is that it is not worth it.)

Political wonks are smart--well, some of you are, at least. So please consider expanding your vocabulary to the point where it reflects the extent of your knowledge. (That might really tell us something about the varying levels of intelligence on display on political shows these days....) The best way to do this might be to find different angles on the news of the day, such as the ever-present presidential race.

For instance, perhaps you can discuss the international reaction to the continuing Democratic nomination race, and then move toward a state-by-state discussion of the individual primaries. Since you folks are members of the erudite "chatty classes," I will describe what I'm suggesting by using academic language: I would postulate that you invert your present micro- to sometimes (but not often enough) macro-discussion of the presidential race in such a manner that you would first look at the macro-reverberations and then focus on the micro-implications in order to see if there is any correlation and/or disconnect between how the race is viewed at the two levels. (And don't fake like you don't know what I mean--I know you understand me.) This is simply a suggestion....

Yours sincerely,

Hasslington

p.s. In listening to news reporters and analysts trying to out-utter each other insofar as the use of this phrase is concerned, I'm reminded of when I was about twelve or in my early teens and the overused word "awesome" was replaced temporarily with the overused word "radical" (the shortened version of which was "rad"). All I heard for about a year was "...that's radical..." or "...that's rad...." I was once asked by a schoolmate why I didn't use that term often. I rather naively replied, "I don't see how all of these things can be said to endorse a quick and sweeping alteration in government structures and methods of governing." And, again, Mr. Robinson, I know you know what I mean.

p.p.s. If you could do one more small thing for me, that would be great: please ask Joe Scarborough if he's actually ever been to Scarborough, England. (Or if he's been anywhere outside of Conservative-ville, for that matter.) I ask this because I think that particular not-so-old dog could still conceivably be taught a few new geocultural tricks....