Connect with us

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



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

Telling The Audience What You Think They Want to Hear Won’t Help You Grow

“Calling out each candidate’s positives and negatives isn’t picking one over the other, it’s opining on the news of the day.”



Photo Credit: iStock

It’s OK to not always tell your audience what you think they want to hear. 

I have been writing that phrase down at the top of my notepad before I start my show for the last two weeks. Something tells me I will need it for at least another 12 months.

In the last week alone there have been two major topics that have divided News Talk audiences across the country: The debt-ceiling debate and the brewing Donald Trump vs. Ron DeSantis feud.

And as I’ve listened to talented hosts and perused the social media landscape, I’ve noticed a hesitancy that I usually would not expect. 

Granted, for the last two years it’s been relatively easy when talking about the national political scene: Joe Biden is a disaster. Whether it’s economic policy, border policy or foreign policy, most Americans don’t believe the guy is doing a good job. The News Talk audience, generally speaking, thinks he’s doing a terrible job.

That’s shooting fish in a barrel. But now comes the hard(er) work. 

Starting with the debt-ceiling drama, there was a big divide amongst Republicans in the House of Representatives. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, however dozens of Republicans, many of the most conservative members of the House, voted against the bill, saying it did not do enough to cut spending

As a result, it seemed many hosts, who assume their audience blindly aligns with everything the most-conservative members of the House say, were hesitant to point out the obvious: Explain what better deal you were getting when you only had a small majority in the House, and no control over the Senate or the White House?

It was a question I never got a good answer to on my show.

Republicans already picked up a win getting Biden to the negotiating table after he spent months saying he wanted a clean debt-ceiling raise with no spending cuts attached. Speaker Kevin McCarthy won, got some concessions, and slowly began turning the tide towards hopefully Senate and White House victories in 2024, when then the real work can begin on getting spending under control. This was a victory.

And while no one with any levels of fiscal sanity believes our government’s spending isn’t wildly out of control, that is a separate conversation from whether or not this was a good or smart deal. 

Then, there’s the Trump vs. DeSantis feud. Some have staked their claim with one candidate over the other. Some are trying to toe the line and avoid all conflict. Neither approach makes sense to me.

The obvious approach seems to me to analyze the candidate’s based on what they do and say on a given day. There will be good and bad days for Trump. DeSantis will have his up and down moments. I can guarantee this because they’re flawed human beings like the rest of us.Like every election season, it will ebb and flow, and eventually someone will come out on top.

Calling out each candidate’s positives and negatives isn’t picking one over the other, it’s opining on the news of the day.

If you compare this to sports talk radio, a national host talking about the NFL Playoffs doesn’t have to have a preferred team, but he or she has to have something to say that’s interesting, compelling, honest, thought-provoking and entertaining.

If they don’t do this, they’ll become wallpaper in a world of too many media options. 

If you have the trust of your audience, you’re real, honest, engaging and thoughtful, you won’t lose your audience. You’ll keep them engaged and you’ll grow 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

Why Did Newsmax Allow Rep. Matt Gaetz to Host An Unchallenged TV Program?

“A sitting politician hosting a show also doesn’t allow for a variety of opinion. It gives them the ability to deceive their audience, delude their constituents and impact lives in the name of lies.”

Jessie Karangu



Photo Credit: Newsmax

Representing your constituents in Congress used to be a mark of honor. It was a position that came with pride and respect. At least that’s what I’ve heard from older relatives who lived in an America that was supposedly more united. Today, depending on the individual, the position doesn’t usually come with too much regard if any at all. Congress has an all-time low approval rating and many representatives go into the job plotting their next money-making move in the process. 

The cable news circuit has slowly but surely built a bench of potential hosts from current and former Congressmen. Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News commentator, Trey Gowdy is a host on Fox News, Joe Scarborough is MSNBC’s morning show anchor and most recently Rep. Matt Gaetz anchored his own hour for Newsmax. As much as some members of Congress roast young Gen Zers for their tenacity when it comes to TikTok, these men are just as eager for the wrong kind of attention and spotlight. 

A former Congressman on television can provide perspective that gives context to current issues the country faces. On Scarborough’s morning show, he often harkens back to past negotiations and talks he had with fellow lawmakers. At times, he even uses those connections to find out the inside scoop about something that’s happening in the moment. Current Congressmen who appear on shows as guests also get to talk directly to their constituents hopefully alongside a host that is willing to challenge them on the issues of the day and not simply allow them to lead the audience astray. 

For Newsmax to allow Rep. Gaetz to host a show though, is a disgrace to a medium of television that already like Congress doesn’t have much acclaim. With that being said, even for cable news, this is a major low and it should never happen on either side of the aisle. Politicians are elected to serve but are also forced to make tough decisions. These choices are answerable to the American people. When a Congressman is allowed to spew their thoughts uncensored, it takes attention away from the issues that really matter. 

A sitting politician hosting a show also doesn’t allow for a variety of opinion. It gives them the ability to deceive their audience, delude their constituents and impact lives in the name of lies. Unless Gaetz had a co-host that was a journalist questioning his takes, how does an unchallenged show truly serve the public – an oath he agreed to partake in when he took on his role as a Congressman. 

Gaetz’s appearance is also a waste of tax dollars. The people of Florida who elected him into office expect Gaetz to be working with fellow lawmakers to make their lives better. They expect him to be doing research or reading up on bills that can bring the change he’s promised to his voters. Instead, he used the resources of hard-working Floridians to moonlight into his next career and spew misinformation that can prove harmful to the public.

If we allow more serving Congressmen to host their own cable talk shows on such a widely distributed platform, will we reach a day when lawmakers exclusively negotiate bills on television? Will Congressmen be more worried about ratings than results? We’ve already seen what happens when a President reigns over a populous and only rules based on what he sees on television. We’ve also seen the political implications that come with such unjustly behavior. Cable news networks will suffer the moral consequences of their actions while politicians who dare to try this act again will eventually face the demise of their legacy in the voting booth. Be careful.

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

Sales Productivity Protects You From Hedge Fund Uncertainty

“The good news is that most radio station clusters are still very profitable. The bad news, the debt makes many clusters unprofitable.”

Avatar photo



Almost 30 years ago, Radio station ownership limits were lifted, and Wall Street saw an opportunity. But the hedge funds didn’t understand the business and created mayhem in a still vital industry.

I worked in New York City for over 6 years. I had the opportunity to spend time around the brain trust of Wall Street. These Masters of the Universe saw the weakness of the radio industry and thought that they had all the answers. 

Well, they didn’t. 

I will give you some history from my perspective. My first 16 years were spent working for family run operations. Both of these companies were managed by third generation operators who put people and community first. These were highly successful operations with large staffs. 

I am not looking back with rose colored glasses. No organization is perfect or without unique challenges. But people were first in these broadcast companies. Both of my first employers had top consultants to give strong outside the organization feedback. Both companies had General Managers that catered to both the programming and sales departments. 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the biggest overhaul of telecommunications law in 62 years. It was widely thought that this would bring radio into modern times. Consolidation has been a landmark of American Business, so, Wall Street’s Hedge Funds saw an opening.  Radio station owners sold for insane profits. Longtime owners were able to sell stations for multiples of up to 30 times meaning that if an owner had a station earning 1 million dollars, they could sell it for 30 million dollars. Quite a return (Most stations didn’t go that high but multiples of 18-25 were very common during this period).  

Wall Street looked at radio like the pickle industry. Except there was an issue. Radio did not have hundreds of workers in each location. You couldn’t move all operations to a central hub and save HUGE money, that would justify strong ROI. So, radio ended up with several large owners (by the way, I am not criticizing iHeart, Audacy, Cumulus and the other large owners). 

When larger companies developed, they went public selling stock to individual shareholders and institutional investors. The market states that companies show a certain amount of revenue growth per year. Let’s say that number is 10%. Radio is interesting, we are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. You cannot just build new radio stations. So, companies were forced to merge or expand to meet revenue goals. Wall Street encouraged and even demanded it. 

Here was the problem – radio companies acquired an unsupportable amount of debt that could never be paid back. The Hedge Funds just moved cash around and demanded companies cut staff and consolidate management. It was a blood bath. Any of us who entered this business in the 90’s saw this. Great broadcasters, salespeople, managers were forced out because of unsustainable debt and micromanaging Hedge Funds.  

On the local level, new clusters were forced to protect the biggest biller in the group. This was not set to grow revenue; it was to protect the revenue and keep the spreadsheets looking right. I know of stations that were more successful brands in ratings in a cluster than the cash cow but if you were the Program Director who was consistently beating the cash cow, your job was in jeopardy.  This was a reverse hunger games caused by debt, fear and shortsightedness. 

So, here we are.

The good news is that most radio station clusters are still very profitable. 

The bad news, the debt makes many clusters unprofitable.

Even though a couple of the bigger companies have gone bankrupt, they’re not bankruptcy situations where assets were liquidated creating a market-based value of these properties. It was essentially a negotiation to lower the debt, and did not move these companies to become cash positive operations again. 

Why do the Hedge Funds not cut their losses and move on? Now that is a great question.  Hedge funds handle billions of dollars. They bundle bad deals with great deals and so their investors don’t seem to have a problem if they see enough of a profit at the end of the month, quarter or year. People remember the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. Hedge Funds were bundling bad mortgages with good ones. Soon the bad overcame the market. Thus, a crash.  The homes never went away. The value of real estate fell dramatically in many places.

Are people still listening to us? 80% of Americans do. Not the 93% of a decade or so ago (Pew Research). This is much better than local TV where only 63% of Americans watch local TV News.

But what is the future?

It is entirely up to Hedge Fund involvement. Will Hedge Funds cut their losses and move on?  If that occurs, will local broadcasters rise again? 

What can YOU do?

It is all about the billing. If you are billing a lot more than you cost, the company will need you, and indispensability is what corporate leaders will see. Make yourself available for Sales. If you are the morning talent, be dressed well enough for a sales call. Make yourself available a few times each week to meet clients. Let salespeople know about the products and services that you use. Radio personalities are influencers. They have huge audiences that listen every day.  Don’t forget your advantage. We cannot control the Hedge Funds, corporate debt or a fast-changing marketplace. 

This was not an exhaustive history, but it illustrates our challenges. Radio programming departments are filled with creative people who just want to entertain. Be aware of our weaknesses and strengths. The Market Manager and sales manager are under huge pressure.  Be that person who understands their concerns.

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

Copyright © 2023 Barrett Media.