Just saw this.
It’s totally legit to report that warmer air is pushing the jet stream north, which will affect weather. Calling it “unprecedented” bugs me.
I studied geology in college. In geology you think in terms of very long time spans. So when I see claims about some “unprecedented” change, I immediately think “how long has this been going on, and how much data do we have?”
It’s almost impossible to believe that we have enough data on the jet stream to call something “unprecedented.”
Headline writers are in the business of getting your attention — getting you to click. Fear, astonishment, “you won’t believe,” etc., is their stock and trade. But this exaggeration filters into the way we think, and the way we see the world. E.g., it’s not just that weather patterns will change. It’s “unprecedented.”
The word “could” is also an invaluable tool for writers of clickbait.
“How” also works.
One of my favorites is…”X totally destroyed Y” as a title on YouTube videos.
Some other current divisive phrases…”deep state”, “war on Christmas”, “masks”, “unconstitutional”, “socialism”, “snowflake”, “woke”, “fake news”, “RINO”, “Trump Derangement Syndrome”…to name a few.
Divisive only when misused. Some things are unprecedented, and some things are unconstitutional.
They ARE typically misused thus becoming divisive.
It’s my general observation that it’s only unconstitutional when the other side does it. Same with cheating. Same with unfulfilled promises. When it’s “my side”, then everyone gets a pass.
I seem to remember it starting with Limbaugh, Faux, Drudge, and their ilk. Don’t know when Daily Kos jumped in. Seems like it is SOP for all “media”/”news” outlets now. If I didn’t want access to Facebook Marketplace, I would have deleted my FB account by now.
“it starting” — what is the “it”?
I marvel at how things are reported as “unconstitutional” when it’s the other side doing it. Yet, when the accusing side is doing the same alleged unconstitutional action, then it’s reported as constitutional.