Connect with us
BNM Summit

BNM Writers

Today’s News is So Cliche

If you are one of the lucky ones who never noticed the over-reliance on the following words, consider your days of naivete now permanently over.

Rick Schultz

Published

on

The news can cause your blood pressure to skyrocket, in more ways than one. Especially if you are someone who values and cherishes precise use of the English language.

Like fingernails across a chalkboard, avid news consumers have become accustomed to, and increasingly annoyed by, the same old, worn-out cliches.

There is no doubt that you have heard these phrases and words used over and over. Probably a hundred times in the past week. In fact, they are so prevalent that you may not even notice their non-stop overuse by television and radio talking heads, analysts and guests.

If you are one of the lucky ones who never noticed the over-reliance on the following words, consider your days of naivete now permanently over. 

Not that using these phrases and words make you a bad person, or even a subpar news broadcaster. It’s just that your audience has been irked by them for far too long. 

They may not be bothered enough to tune you out, although it now provides them a clarifying opportunity to separate the broadcasting wheat from the chaff.

So here is a list, albeit not a complete one, of some of the most bothersome, annoyingly-overused crutch words and cliches heard every day across the broadcast airwaves.

“Um”, “ah”, “you know” – These are the classic of all classic crutch words. Since the first time a mic was powered on, we’ve heard these words sprinkled into broadcasts, by talent across all levels. Non-discriminating and quick to jump out, these common culprits have stood the test of time.

“It was…um…quite a scene on 2nd Avenue today, when….ah….police cornered the armed suspect who, you know, was ready for a fight.”

Essentially – Seemingly a favorite of the new woke, millennial crowd, this flavor of the week appears everywhere a host, guest or analyst wishes to instill a sense of his or her intelligence. 

“Well Jim, essentially what this move does is put Tesla in a position of power. Essentially they are the leader in new technology, with Elon Musk essentially lighting the way across a new, essentially endless universe.”

Yeah, no – It’s difficult to know what this phrase actually means when it is used. Usually, a guest uses it to start a response to a question. The real question, though, is does in mean YES or does it mean NO? Or does it mean both? And if so, why combine both the positive and negative when simply one would do the trick?

“Isn’t it true that this government spending has to stop, Joe?”

Yeah, no, Sally, we’re mortgaging our kids’ future with every dollar we spend on social engineering garbage.”

So…. – This one is straight forward. For some reason, may guests feel obligated to start their answer to a question with “So”. It doesn’t really fit at the beginning of a sentence, but this has been a common way of beginning an answer to a question for about five years, when it emerged as a top crutch word for champions in all walks of life. Most notably, this has become a go-to in the corporate world, making appearances in lectures, earnings calls, media programs and corporate gatherings.

“What is your biggest product development going to be this year?”
So….we’ve got a truly deep and revolutionary pipeline…..”

Right – This self-affirming word has been popping up on the air for about a half a decade now, and it still doesn’t quite fit. It would be fitting to use this word as a questioning technique, at the end of a sentence. However, it is now interspersed in monologues, responses and commentary, seemingly adding nothing to the overall feel of the conversation. To many, the use of this word makes the speaker sound rather obnoxious.

“This is a big year for the party, right. They need to prove they can govern, right, rather than just be the opposition. Now is the time to put results or face the consequences, right.”

Literally – How many times do we hear this word used incorrectly? The word “literally” means to adhere to fact. So why, then, do we hear it used so often to hyperbolize a scenario? For example, “This will literally be the end of the Senate if the filibuster is abolished.” In actuality, and in terms of adhering to fact, the Senate will still exist. Putting the policy argument aside, the Senate would indeed continue to exist. To use literally would mean there would, in fact, no longer be a Senate if the filibuster is abolished.  

Super – This one added a little pizzazz to your commentary about a decade ago. If you said something was super-anything, it gave it a feel of extra intensity or importance. Now, however, the term is so overused, that it has gone the way of lazy cliche. You now stand out as unique and fresh only if you don’t use it.

“He is a super-smart leader, and I am super-excited to have him on our team.”

100 percent – At some point in the past bunch of years, this became a replacement for the word YES. Or a stand-in for the feeling of agreement. Regardless, it has become overused as a crutch word of choice.

“Isn’t it true that raising taxes is equal to stealing from good, hard-working Americans?”
100 percent Laura, that is exactly what it is.”

Sort of / Kind of – These phrases have become filler material, much like white rice or dinner rolls. They don’t give you anything of value, other than fill you up for the short term.

“The market is sort of like water or energy. Money kind of flows to the best projects, the best people and the best ideas. This is the way that we sort of define value and grow the economy based on kind of what actually helps our societies grow.”

Like – In many areas of the media, and certainly the alternative, non-traditional media, this word still holds a high place of esteem. But to the traditional, trained ear, it rings of teenage, valley-girl hanging out at the mall. Especially to an older audience, using this word often during the broadcast makes one come across immediately as less intelligent or sophisticated.

“It was, like, a great day to be in New York. The parade was, like, an important moment for the city and, like, very inspirational.”

Really – Another filler word, meant to imply a higher level of importance. It doesn’t add anything precise.

“The governor initially took a really strong stand, and since then he has really stood even stronger on principle. This is really his best moment in office.”

Look – This word is used when a guest, analyst or host begins to talk and his mouth hasn’t yet caught up with his mind. This crutch word is used to help put his thoughts in place and begin the substantive portion of his commentary. If he needs a second or two to compile the perfect sentence, this word can give him the time he needs.

“Look, I wanted to get you all together today to discuss our 3rd quarter initiatives…..”

So there is the list, right. It’s kind of frustrating to hear these really annoying crutch words in, like, literally every news broadcast. Look, it’s essentially a chore to listen to a broadcast where these words are sort of sprinkled everywhere. 100 percent.

Now get off my lawn, and enjoy the news!

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

A Message to Radio Leaders About Burnout

While you’re focused on the bottom line, pay closer attention to the people on the assembly line, the talented men and women trying to crank out an excellent product.

Avatar photo

Published

on

A photo of an exhausted person

Life is show prep. That’s what my Dallas radio co-host Amy Chodroff always said and she was right.

If you do a news or talk radio show you get it, it’s non-stop. You spend every day of your life reading news and considering opinions. You scrutinize reported facts, look for bias, gauge your reaction, and think about how you’ll present it on the air.

This is the only way you can do your job. Your listeners expect you to know more than they do, to inform them, and to offer insights into every situation and with every interview you present on the air.

Life is, in fact, show prep. But if you’re a news or talk radio show host you might have trouble explaining that to some people who don’t understand this because they’ve never tried doing it.

Your bosses, for example.

When I retired recently, this conflict was the tipping point. I had a recent health scare that thankfully turned out to be nothing more than a wake-up call. As long as I could remember, I was getting up at 2:30 AM every day to do a radio news show that aired live from 5 until 9 AM.

By 9:05 AM, I was mentally exhausted, but the boss felt I should put in a full eight hours on the clock, joining the newsroom staff from 9:00 until noon or 1:00 P.M.

More than the extra work itself, dodging that insistence wore me out and took me to retirement. I tried but couldn’t effectively explain that I worked as much at home and wherever else I happened to be as I did when I was in the building.

Life is show prep. And I suppose that can sound like a justification for going home after a four or five-hour shift, but if you’ve never done it, you can’t know the truth.

I got breaking news alerts on my phone while at home with family and in restaurants with friends. I was in daily contact with my co-host and our producer. Text meetings and phone calls between us during weekends were frequent. Show prep doesn’t allow time off between air shifts, even when you’re on vacation.

You may be a sales executive, administration manager, or an engineer thinking, ‘Yeah, I think about work away from the office, too.’ But what you don’t do when you’re in the office is perform to the immediate judgment of thousands of people live, non-stop, four hours per day, five days a week. It’s a never-ending multi-tasking job that requires keeping one eye on the clock, part of your brain focused on the real-time on-air content, while other parts are planning what you must do next and 20 minutes from now and next hour as you’re making notes for future reference.

While all of this is going on, you’re also signaling your co-host, producer, and if you have one your board operator. If you’ve never done all of that there’s no way I can explain that being on the air requires more concentration and energy in four hours than your eight-hour work day does. It just does.

Show prep never ends. Never.

You will read far more versions of various news stories than anyone you know except your on-air partner if you have one. Those stories are rabbit holes and you’ll dive into them, looking for red flags and nuance, double and triple checking your sources because you don’t want to make a fool of yourself. Now more than ever you can trip an information landmine with any single step. Your credibility and career depend on preparing your show carefully but quickly, 24/7.

Now we have this idea that news anchors and talk hosts should have three or four more hours of additional responsibilities after their show ends, as tomorrow’s show prep continues. It’s ignorant and debilitating. Yet, here we are, in the new era of corporate bean counters and the elimination of trained human resources in radio newsrooms filled with empty workstations and only one or two people on duty to answer the phone, gather information, write or rewrite it, record various sources including their own on-air reports while setting up and performing interviews. These under-appreciated magicians often have hourly newscasts to prepare and perform as well.

Radio news staffs are seriously shorthanded. How can a manager improve efficiency? Why, call on people who have just done a four-hour show preceded by an hour or two of in-studio prep and all that work they did at home.

An RTDNA study published a year ago revealed that nearly 70% of news directors reported their staff were overworked and suffering from job burnout.

Ya think?

There is an implied hint of good news in the RTDNA’s most recent look into the problem: Radio news staffing changes are actually increasing slightly. Hey, great! But if you look at the numbers below the headline you’ll be shocked. How do radio news and talk survive?

“The latest RTDNA/Newhouse School at Syracuse University Survey shows the typical (median) radio news operation has a full-time news staff of two for the second year in a row.”

TWO FULL-TIME NEWS STAFFERS!

(Disclaimer: Your numbers may vary, depending on market size and how many news and talk hosts are folded into the count when they get off the air.)

There was a time when providing factual news and the exchange of ideas was a lofty yet achievable ideal. It was so exciting we couldn’t wait to get to work.

In those days, air talent was paid their actual value related to radio station earnings. My salary as a morning news host in Sacramento was five times more than I made in Dallas, 40 years later. The pressure to do more eventually burned me out. Now I know people half my age making less than half of my salary when I started in Dallas 12 years ago. Major market news and talk talents are cashing paychecks equal to or less than what their grandpas made as medium market top-40 deejays.

I don’t have any solutions to the money problems that face every news/programming/sales and general manager each day. I will suggest a thought, though:

While you’re focused on the bottom line, pay closer attention to the people on the assembly line, the talented men and women trying to crank out an excellent product. What would your profit and loss statement look like without them?

Sit down with your program and news directors, news writers and reporters, producers, and show hosts. Show them a little love. Ask them what they need and how you might be able to help. They’ll want you to pay them more and hire more people, you know that going in so think about it now. Is that possible?

You’re smart, which is why you’re the manager. I’ll bet you can figure out a way to do it.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

How News/Talk Radio Hosts Can Use Caitlin Clark to Reach Broader Audiences

This is what’s going on in their lives, and you have an opportunity to connect with them.

Published

on

A photo of Caitlin Clark
(Photo: John Mac C.C. 2.0)

Caitlin Clark and Donald Trump have something in common, and I have no idea if it’s their politics. But Caitlin Clark in the 2024 news cycle is Donald Trump circa 2015-16 to the news/talk radio topic selection.

Just like no one had seen anything like Donald Trump in modern American politics, no one has seen anything close to Caitlin Clark in the WNBA.

The WNBA has existed for nearly three decades but has smashed all ratings and attendance records, at least for games involving Clark. Caitlin Clark is bigger than the WNBA, just like Donald Trump when he first burst onto the scene, at least, was bigger than the bubble that was American politics.

The other thing both have in common is that they transcend their respective supposed lanes. Donald Trump was bigger than politics when he entered the political arena in 2015. Caitlin Clark is bigger than women’s basketball. Politics was not the story in 2015; Trump was the story. Now, the WNBA is not the story; Caitlin Clark is the story.

So, if you’re a news/talk radio host and you’re not taking advantage of the Caitlin Clark news cycle, what are you waiting for? As the battle for younger listeners continues in the news/talk space, this is your opportunity; don’t miss it.

Your target, in-demo audience — parents in their late 30s, 40s, and early 50s (think 35-54) — who have daughters between the ages of 8 and 18, are probably talking about Caitlin Clark in their homes, around the dinner table, and when driving them around town to practices and friend’s houses. This is what’s going on in their lives, and you have an opportunity to connect with them.

This doesn’t mean breaking down Caitlin Clark’s box score. I admittedly have no idea how many points she’s averaging per game. But it’s about diving into the cultural issues surrounding Clark in recent weeks. From cheap shots on the court to Olympic Team slights, these topics are opportunities to weave a broad, cultural news topic into a radio format and show that extends beyond the hard news/politics/nuts and bolts news stories.

Undoubtedly, those are important, but they remain a lane that isn’t necessarily growing, especially in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

And with a news/talk host’s ability to understand the current cultural and political climate likely better than your competitor on the sports talk station, you have a topic and angle unique to your town and potential listening audience.

In the last two weeks, the most calls we’ve received on a single segment came during a topic on Caitlin Clark being shoved by Chennedy Carter, which went viral two weekends ago. Men, women, young, and old all wanted to chime in and had an opinion. And it came on a Monday morning when most of us in the chair can attest that the phones are usually slower than later in the week. You had sports mixed with culture and race bubbling into one topic that can be seized compellingly by a news/talk radio show.

Caller reaction cannot be the main driver of what makes good radio or a compelling topic, but it can be anecdotal, in that moment, for what the audience is willing to and wants to react to.

So, while I can’t tell you who Caitlin Clark’s team, the Indiana Fever, will play tonight, tomorrow, or the night after (or even if they play), I can tell you I’ll be following for any viral moments that might play in the news/talk space.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

The Case for News Media Outlets to Utilize Paywalls

Why are we giving our work for free?

Published

on

A photo of a newspaper printing press

As local newspapers across the country shutter Americans are craving local news, but not in the traditional sense. A new Pew Institute Research study found a large majority of Americans believe local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their community.

Yet, only 15% say they have paid or given money to any local news source in the last year.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Except, in this case, there is no such thing as free news. People are in need of, and crave, local journalists’ hard work but are unwilling to pay for it. This is unsustainable.

Pew found 32% of those polled are looking to TV for local news, which is still the most common source of news. However, this is down from 41% in 2018. Just 9% look to print and another 9% look to radio for news. It’s no surprise to anyone Americans are looking to get local news online from websites (26%) and social media (23%).

While the transition from print to digital is relatively easy from a strictly content standpoint, having people pay is borderline impossible. The most common explanation is that people don’t pay because they can find plenty of free local news. The answer for our industry to survive is simple: paywalls.

Even with a Borrell Associates prediction of local broadcast TV advertisements growing 5.9% it won’t last. The agency noted the 2024 bump will fall after the election. We can not rely on every election cycle to survive.

In 20 years, TV won’t be able to subsidize digital (in some markets they are already unable to do this). In fact, this business model needs to be flipped around before local TV and radio stations shutter like newspapers have.

As I said in a previous article, it is unethical to have social media companies pay news outlets for content (like the legislation in Australia and Canada pushed through). But the money has to come from somewhere.

Why are we giving our work for free? A dollar per click on digital advertising is only sustainable (and offers a livable wage) when it comes to clickbait. However, the mind-numbing click farm is not why most of us do what we do.

Journalists are supposed to provide information, stand up for the truth, and have some sort of moral integrity. This does not mean we and our colleagues need to live on barely minimum wage. (Full disclosure, moral integrity does not mean “activist journalism,” which is bad and not actually journalism. I mean have the integrity to keep yourself and your view out of the story.)

Suits, this is where I turn to you. In 2022, local TV over-the-air advertising revenue totaled $20.5 billion according to a Pew study. The same study said profits from digital advertising revenue reached $2 billion. So where does this money go? It’s certainly not in the newsroom.

On average starting salaries are $37,600, according to The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). They calculate since 2020 those who work in news on average lost 8.3% in real wages. However, the amount of airtime for local outlets increased by 18 minutes per weekday. Meaning more work, less pay, and even less time to enjoy that breaking news pizza.

People are now making more at fast food restaurants in California than your newsroom associate with a bachelor’s degree. This is not normal. Invest in your people.

Journalists have so much more to offer the community yet they are not being paid. The companies they work for are not making as much as they could because everyone is afraid to put up a paywall.

If all local news outlets unanimously ask their readers to pay (like we used to before the dot com boom when everyone had to buy a paper) people would pay. They need us to be properly informed. While we are fully aware of our industry’s credit crunch, those outside of our world are blissfully unaware of our precarious situation.

Most importantly, local news outlets are facing a news dotcom problem, ‘Dark Money.’ Axios reported this week the number of biased outlets, that say they are impartial, is more than the number of actual local daily newspapers in the U.S.

Not only are we not being paid for the value of our work, we are competing with people who have bad intentions, unlimited money, and unlimited bandwidth. True news might be dead at the national level but we can not let this happen to local news.

There is no such thing as free news. So why does the industry as a whole treat our valuable content in this way?

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement Will Cain
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.