A veritable plethora of tired cliches

[Dr. Whiplash]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A "surge" of overused words and phrases formed a "perfect storm" of "post-9/11" cliches in 2007, according to a U.S. university's annual list of words and phrases that deserve to be banned.

Choosing from among 2,000 submissions, the public relations department at Michigan's Lake Superior State University targeted 19 affronts to the English language in its well-known jab at the worlds of media, sports, advertising and politics.

The contributors gave first prize to the phrase "a perfect storm," saying it was numbingly applied to virtually any notable coincidence. "Webinar" made the list as a tiresome non-word combining Web and seminar that a contributor said "belongs in the same school of non-thought that brought us e-anything and i-anything."

Similarly, the list-makers complained about the absurd comparisons commonly phrased "x is the new y," as in "(age) 70 is the new 50" or "chocolate is the new sex." "Fallacy is the new truth," commented one contributor.

Some words and phrases sagged under the weight of overuse, contributors said, citing the application of "organic" to everything from computer software to dog food. In the same vein, decorators offering to add "pop" with a touch of color need new words, the list-makers said.

Such phrases as "post 9/11" and "surge" have also outlived their usefulness, they said. Surge emerged in reference to adding U.S. troops in Iraq but has come to explain the expansion of anything.

Other contributors took umbrage at the phrase to "give back" as applied to charitable gestures, usually by celebrities. "The notion has arisen that as one's life progresses, one accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society which must be neutralized by charitable works or financial outlays," one said.

"Back in the day" raised hackles for being applied to recent trends rather than historical events.

Other teenage linguistic indiscretions such as the often meaningless use of "random" and "sweet" raised the ire of list-makers, as did the pointless "it is what it is."

Reporters were chided for skipping out on detail by describing an event or parting as "emotional," and for misapplying "decimate" when they mean annihilate or destroy, not the word's true meaning of to lose a fraction. And sports announcers were urged to drop "throw under the bus" when assigning blame to a player.

"It is a call for the media to start issuing a thesaurus to everyone in front of a camera," a contributor said.

[Arp2]

Other contributors took umbrage at the phrase to "give back" as applied to charitable gestures, usually by celebrities. "The notion has arisen that as one's life progresses, one accumulates a sort of deficit balance with society which must be neutralized by charitable works or financial outlays," one said.

Indeed!

If one is going to "give back," one has to "give back" the very same thing to the very person, company, or organization that gave it first. Anything else is simply "giving."

"Giving back" is a sort of quid pro quo, and the net result is zero; big deal!
Actual "giving" results in less for the giver and more for the recipient, is a virtuous thing, and is a much bigger deal.

"Back in the day" raised hackles for being applied to recent trends rather than historical events.

"You're not even 20...whaddya mean 'back in the day??'"

Reporters were chided for skipping out on detail by describing an event or parting as "emotional,"....

Well, yeah, it is "skipping detail," but it's really something far worse at the same time -- it's intentionally sensationalizing...it's intentionally "emotioning up" "news" 'cause they've been told to as if loading up on emotion and feminizing "news" is going to save the "news" bidness! (Try "just report," instead!)

Too dumb to do a good job of adding the emotion they've been instructed to add, "reporters" simply add the word "emotional." The consumer's brain is forced to create a scene, a scene which likely never existed. Previously ignorant, the news consumer is now wrong! Given that ignorance is better, the news consumer is actually worse off after supposedly becoming informed!