1 Comment

These "proto-cliches" show up all the time.

Most speeches and news stories are written by underlings and interns with limited experience who are either afraid to actually use language in any meaningful way or haven't the authority to actually say anything meaningful. Some new turn of phrase comes along and they all latch onto it once it hits the rounds to fill the void of meaningless missives that make up most communications. Once it makes an appearance, it is deemed a safe filler that isn't going to ruffle any feathers and not stand out like a fart in church as some ill wrought metaphor that doesn't paint the intended picture when it goes over the intended audience's head when it isn't as illustrative as the author thought it was when they were trying cobble something together to meet their deadline.

I feel your pain. Sorry for your loss. Thank you for your service. Next level. Game changer. Outside the box. Paradigm shift. Safety first. They will crop up and make the rounds until they quickly lose their newly minted novelty. Since they actually do not convey any meaning, they have a limited shelf life before they become stale and hackneyed.

Back when journalism was a tradesman endeavor, things were written at a low reading level on purpose. Not because the readers didn't have the comprehension but for brevity and clarity. As it has become the domain of the "educated elite" the shift has brought with it the desire for the writers to illustrate their intellectual superiority by slipping in more esoteric vocabulary. The perfect example was when the word gravitas, made the rounds in the news cycle.

Couple this with the move in news going moving away from relaying information to spin, narrative building, and damage control, writers don't want to become the tall blade of grass and will simply parrot the pre-approved vocabulary so they don't get caught up in the grinder.

Expand full comment