Today, as part of our ongoing series which seeks to answer the question, "Why do newspapers do that?" we will be discussing something more annoying than the thought of Richard Simmons and Rush Limbaugh having a love child: Yes, we will be discussing the latest journalistic cliches.
I am motivated to discuss this topic based on a reader letter I received, which I have completely made up:
Dear Jimmy,
Sincerely,
What is up with all this "raising the bar" and "leveling the playing field" crap, anyway? Also, what is up with that mug shot of Cal Thomas? It makes him look like a gay maitre d' at a French restaurant.
Mrs. Bertha P. Higglewacker
That is a very good question, Mrs. Higglewacker. I have no idea what is up with that mug shot of Cal Thomas. But then again, I can't talk, because the shirt I am wearing in my mug shot makes me look like a "Leave it to Beaver" refugee.
As for your other question, journalists have been using these cliches because our sources use them a lot. We journalists will be at a press conference feverishly scribbling in our little pads while some senator or something prattles on like this:
"This bill will seek to raise the bar. We want to level the playing field for everybody; we really had to think outside the box to come up with this one. After all, danger was lurking."
After hearing this, we come back and write our stories (even though we have no idea what the senator was talking about; presumably, neither did he), and inevitably, the cliches make their way into our stories. Then, they make their way into headlines, and before you know it, they're everywhere. Kind of like rabbits. Or vermin. Or Congressmen.
And the sad thing is, none of these cliches make any dang sense. "Raising the bar," for example, is just stupid. It is a high-jumping or pole-vaulting reference. But if it is used as a limbo reference -- which it easily could be -- then all heck breaks loose.
I would also like to note that I have never seen anybody thinking inside of a box, period. If you are thinking inside a box, you need to be put in a mental home, or need to find a job with better working conditions.
However, the cliche which bothers me the most is the one about danger lurking. Now, honestly, has anybody ever seen danger lurk? Danger does not lurk, period. Vultures lurk. Tall people lurk. Danger ... well, it does not do much of anything, except ... um, act dangerous.
Never mind.
In any case, these cliches, I fear, are hear to stay, until some new, even more ones enter our lexicon, and level the playing field in the sport of cliches.
--
On a completely unrelated note, I would like to discuss something that recently happened to me while working at Sears that was strange.
I was in the hardware department trying to think outside of the box, when one of my co-workers came up to me. The look he had on his face was a combination of shock and perplexion, with a little joy thrown in.
"Jimmy!!" he said. "Look at what that woman is wearing!"
He pointed at a woman was looking at the drills (I am NOT making this up). This woman was wearing absolutely nothing above her waist except for a bra.
I then learned nothing, period, can disrupt the proceedings of the Sears hardware department than a woman running around wearing only a bra on her torso (except for maybe a man wearing nothing but a bra on his torso). People were absolutely shocked -- men, women, you name it. Our employees did not know quite what to do.
After she bought a drill, the woman left. And we employees started out on a debate about this bra incident. A significant portion of the employees of the male persuasion were completely in favor of the bra-only female wardrobe choice, placing it second only to the "no bra, no nothing" choice.
I disagree. Now, I must say I went to a college where I saw a lot of stuff -- including two topless women listening to a perplexed traveling preacher, and four men sitting in the campus newspaper's office completely naked during a fake protest -- so I am not an inexperienced prude.
But I believe it is called UNDERwear for a reason. If I am seeing a woman's bra while it is on that woman's body, I had better be either married or on one heck of a date.
That's my opinion. If women start wearing only bras, I fear that danger will certainly be lurking.
Jimmy Boegle, a fifth-generation Nevada, feels he deserves some credit for not making more of the fact that the woman was looking at DRILLS. Jimmy's column appears here Tuesdays; he can be reached at jiboegle@alumni.stanford.org.