Archive for snarkitude

Dep’t. of Gaa! Annoyingly overused phrases in TV news


cliches, phrases

The so-called “news” media (Hey, remember real news?) can get under one’s skin on so many levels. Today, let’s just concentrate on their delivery and vocabulary, because one can only take so much pet peevage in one sitting.  Journalists overuse several terms and phrases the way John Boehner overuses tanning beds and taverns. The way Republicans overuse Voter I.D. laws. The way Sunday talk shows overuse John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The way the GOP overuses the filibuster. The way Ferguson cops overuse tear gas. The way Sarah Palin overuses “You betcha!” “also, too,” and Facebook.

Below are a few of the annoying phrases that cable news hosts, contributors, and guests insist on using over and over and over again, ad nauseam. And these are just off the top of my head.

And don’t even get me started on the weirdly unnatural, singsong delivery and pauses used by most correspondents’ in their “packaged” (pre-taped) segments. Or the inability of many hosts to read off their teleprompters. Or the way MSNBC guests and contributors are forced to clasp their hands in front of them like kindergarteners. Or the Oh, come on now! grammatical errors made by seasoned anchors, underscored by the You gotta be kidding me! spelling errors on the news crawl. Or the forced palsy-walsitude and effusive praise among cliquey hosts. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite doing any of that?

heavy sigh

Rant over.

Here’s a partial list of news biz clichés. Some are irritating because they are meaningless. Some are unbearably stale. Some are painfully trite and/or cloying. Others simply make no sense. And all make me wonder why so many intelligent newscasters and editors rely on such hackneyed and/or poor verbiage. You are invited to pile on in Comments:

  • Take a listen
  • At the end of the day
  • The whole nine yards
  • All politics is local
  • A tempest in a teapot
  • Some say…
  • Game changer
  • Went missing
  • In the days and weeks to come (weeks and months, months and years)…
  • Thank you, my friend
  • On the ground
  • At this point in time
  • Folks
  • I just got off the phone with…
  • Journey
  • Journey
  • Did I mention journey?
  • We need to have a conversation
  • The homeland
  • That being said…
  • We’ll leave it there

We’ll leave it there.

For a satirical look at MSNBC hosts and their banter, link over to my Preen forward #OhButIKid post of a few months ago.

Now that I’ve gotten all that out of my system, can we move on to the most annoyingly overused commercials on TV?



Jon Stewart skewers “Dr.” Karl Rove’s slimy diagnosis of Hillary Clinton #Brainghazi


brainghazi jon stewart karl rove hillary

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Once again, Jon Stewart kills it on The Daily Show. This time around, he’s all over Donald Sterling and Karl Rove the way slime oozes all over Republicans– like Nebraska U.S. Senate nominee Ben Sasse (R), who will “promote almost anarchistic vision” as Senator: Religion trumps law.

Above is Bill Clinton’s reaction. Below is Jon Stewart’s inimitable take on The Daily Show:

Jon Stewart:

Apparently Karl Rove unskewed that number [the number of days Hillary Clinton was in the hospital after her fall].

Clearly, he thought CraniumGate was going to be a slam dunk talking point. Turns out, not really.

“I never said ‘brain damage’! All I said, I merely noted, in passing, that she was wearing traumatic brain injury eye wear, whaddyacall there, loboto-lenses, whatever! The boop-boop! glasses, you know, whatever you want to call ’em.”

Really, Karl, you sure you want to go conspiracy route on this one?

Unanswered questions! An attempted cover-up! My god! It’s Brainghazi!!

How many synapses! We need the truth!! Brainghazi!!!!!

Just one quick question before you go there, House MD: When did you start caring so much about the brain fitness of those who have to hold the Oval Office?

I assume it was right after your boss fell and banged his head after losing a battle with the pretzel. Dude blacks out, next thing you know he’s starting an unprovoked war in Iraq.

Now he spends his days eating applesauce and painting his feet.

gw bush paintings nudes via Gawker

So, Karl, how do you explain your own cranial issues? Or your former boss’s?


karl rove hillary clinton jon stewart brainghazi


Premature speculation: Jon Stewart skewers 2016 election coverage


2016 election speculation Jon Stewart

premature speculation

Last time I looked, the 2016 elections come AFTER the 2014 elections, which seems obvious to those of us who can count. And who own calendars. And who aren’t news dee jays. And who don’t have zillions of dollars available to influence elections, dollars that they slather all over their favorite candidates and causes. So who better to mock the premature 2016 election speculation glut than– ta daa!– Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Presenting “Democalypse 2014: 2016 Foreplay Edition,” the “prespeculation hypotheticals”:

Jon Stewart:

Why speculate about the near future– when you can speculate about the far future? Coming up: Your ten day forecast!– For next February…

Clinton v. Bush! Thank god we fought a bloody war against England so that political power would no longer be consolidated in but one family, because in my mind, two just makes sense…

Does this mean [Hillary’s] hungry for 2016? … We don’t know. Because we can’t know. But still. What?…

I wonder if old Wyatt Oops [Rick Perry] is gonna get back in the saddle?… I know what he’s doing!… He’s going from the handsome bimbo to the bookworm!

He said that in reference to Perry’s “glasses of ensmartenment.”

And he didn’t forget to skewer the Bushes. NosirreeGeorge.

H/t: The Week

jon stewart Hillary Clinton 2016 election speculation


Blog headline o’ the day: “Boehner drops bombshell as Scar Jo rocks epic sideboob.”


read first blog headline

I don’t know how Garry Trudeau does it, but he always does what he does well, including his latest Doonesbury strip. In this Sunday’s snark fest, Trudeau concentrates on how to word a blog headline, something with which we here at The Political Carnival are all too familiar.

In fact, I wrote an entire post about that: “This could be a totally misleading headline. Please read the entire post.” Here are some excerpts:

I can’t count the times I’ve posted links to TPC on Twitter and Facebook and gotten responses from readers who only read the blog headline and then commented on what they assumed the post was about. I then spend time I don’t have explaining, correcting, soothing, or redirecting right back to the post.

Blog titles and headlines are often misleading, sometimes intentionally. [And sometimes unintentionally]… I mistakenly presume that people will link over to see what we’ve taken the time, effort, and even thought (I know, right?) to write, including further explanation of a premise, pertinent information, commentary, snark, quotes from original articles, visuals, videos, and links to other sites that go into more detail.

Instead, people often base their opinions on one sentence, one that may not even represent what’s in the body of the post. At all. Or maybe a little bit. Or maybe a lot, but there’s still much more information than one measly line will telegraph.

So, to repeat myself, and to state the obvious, it’s always a good idea to follow links and not take headlines at face value.

Trudeau takes that premise and runs with it:

doonesbury blog headline