I love how sometimes the media picks up on a certain phrase\/adjective and uses it absolutely everytime something is mentioned.<\/p>\n
For example, if I had a dollar everytime the phrase “disgraced lobbyist” was placed before Jack Abramoff<\/a>‘s name, I would have somewhere around $1400<\/a> (I’m currently getting 1,415 results).<\/p>\n By contrast, there are only 1,384 news articles that include the phrase “lobbyist Jack Abramoff” that don’t have the word “disgraced” in the article<\/a>.<\/p>\n So basically what this means is that when a news article mentions Jack Abramoff’s name, it’s more likely to include the phrase “disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff” than it is likely to not include it.<\/p>\n Now I’m not saying that Jack Abramoff isn’t a disgraced lobbyist (he is most certainly a slimeball), I just find it lazy and humorous that this phrase seems to be so automatic and unoriginal with news reporting. Try a thesaurus or something. I’m sure there are other words that one could use instead of the now-tired “disgraced.”<\/p>\n What are other examples of this? Right now I cannot recall, but keep your eye out for lazy writing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I love how sometimes the media picks up on a certain phrase\/adjective and uses it absolutely everytime something is mentioned. For example, if I had a dollar everytime the phrase “disgraced lobbyist” was placed before Jack Abramoff‘s name, I would have somewhere around $1400 (I’m currently getting 1,415 results). By contrast, there are only 1,384 … Continue reading Disgraceful<\/span>