Saw this response in the NYT today… it was posted in response to the Gail Collins & Bret Stephens weekly “conversation” column. I too commented on the column but perusing the prior responses (1100 and counting), this struck me as being so spot on, that I had to share:
I see the NYT’s “analysts” are busy even now “creating narratives”, one of them in the top page one article just today: Harris is “big on buzz, light on policy.” Just a pretty face? The latest trend? Or a candidate who has already put forth traditional democratic goals: tax cuts for working people and making sure corporations and the wealth class pay theirs; a $6000 new child tax credit, and expansion of the tax credit for children, efforts so far blocked by the “family-loving” republicans in congress. Removal of tax subsidies for buyers of large tracts of houses—why? To stem the equity corporations who now buy out real estate and then Jack up rents and prices on a captive market. Think republicans would ever do that? More generous ACA subsidies so the lower and middle classes aren’t devoured by health costs. And more—plenty. If the NYT wanted to look online, they’d find policies to write about. If the NYT is waiting for Harris to defer to them and give exclusive interviews and all, not so much. The “bending” of narratives, these “analyses”, are not making the media look good. They’re doing the media more harm than they’re doing Harris. And high time, I’d say.
I wish I knew how to talk to the “media” to remind them their role is to ensure the truth* gets covered in political campaigns. It’s not a horse race. It’s not 24/7 only worry about whatever serves as the Jim Jordanized-cultural-outrage-of-the-moment should be. I’ve seen it called the “look here don’t look over there” approach to campaigning, and boy does it work on too much of today’s media.
I only see serious policy discussions emanating from one side on most, if not all, of the most pressing issues Americans face today. I guess that’s why only one campaign is promoting the idea America can be a leader in creating a better world while the other is an always bitter, scowling, and pining plea for a world in which their misogynistic, classist, inequality-filled dreams once prevailed.
* – By “truth,” I mean areas that truly impact the biggest part of most people’s lives: things like economic fairness (meaning useful union involvement if/where necessary), tax equality (we all share this world and its resources, we need to share in its profits, too. So put a brighter light on “Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor” ideology while you report about policies that truly help working families). Health care choice & costs (emphasis on choice for all, not just those who can afford it). I think these are the more traditional small “d” democratic-led issues. Or, have we moved beyond those basics (that a majority of Americans agree on) to the point that the only things that DO matter are the things that most impact the smaller groups of our world? While those ARE important issues, our society needs to have priorities while doing all it can on ALL that it can.
My final two cents regard the word “really.” I apparently really like to use the word really. Because I am now noticing how often it gets the “blue squiggly” from the silly grammar helper bot I was recommended to try. It’s driving me crazy! By the way, here is what Gemini (Google’s AI bot) told me when I asked why bots hate the word “really”:
“Now, about the word “really”… It’s true that many bots and grammar helper apps flag the word “really” as potentially problematic. The issue lies in its tendency to be used as a filler word or intensifier without adding much meaningful content. Often, it can be removed from a sentence without altering the core meaning.
For example:
“I’m really tired” can simply be “I’m tired.”
“That was a really good movie” can be “That was a good movie.”
In these instances, “really” doesn’t provide any additional information or nuance. It’s just taking up space.
Additionally, overuse of “really” can make writing sound less confident and less impactful. It can give the impression that the writer is unsure of their own statements or is trying too hard to convince the reader.
So, while “really” isn’t inherently wrong or forbidden, it’s often better to avoid it in favor of more precise and descriptive language. This will make your writing more concise, impactful, and confident.
However, it’s worth noting that “really” can be useful in certain situations:
When you genuinely need to emphasize something: “I’m really worried about this situation” conveys a stronger sense of concern than simply “I’m worried about this situation.”
When you want to express surprise or disbelief: “You’re really going to do that?”
The key is to use “really” sparingly and intentionally, only when it serves a specific purpose.”
I guess that’s a perspective that I really need to start taking to heart!