Because of the nature of some of the subject matter, this post is rated PG-13. 

Francis Schaefferonce noted a parallel between the decline of civilizations and their tendency toward crudeness.  In this case, crude is defined both as “marked by the primitive, gross, or elemental or by uncultivated simplicity or vulgarity,” and “rough or inexpert in plan or execution.”  The example Dr. Schaeffer used was an examination of Roman coins and the year they were minted.  One could clearly see the decline of the empire mirrored in the decline of craftsmanship in the engraved images.  There are many such parallels, but the one I want to talk about today is language.

Although I speak some Spanish, I can only look with any degree of expertise at American English .  I used to obsess over picky, esoteric facets of the language (Data is the plural of datum. “The data is wrong,” is wrong.)  Lately, it has been much more obvious stuff.  Some of it is just word use (usage and utilization are just stuff-shirt words that carry no greater weight than “use.”)  I frequently see someone write, “I like it alot.”  (Sigh) there is a word, allot, to assign as a share or portion, but the writer almost always means “a lot,” a considerable quantity or extent.  Did I mention that unique means the only oneand cannot be a comparative adjective.  Very unique is akin to very pregnant.   

The major decline I see, however is in the crudeness of language.  We commonly take a vulgar two-word phrase, remove the offensive word, and use it in polite company.  People that would never use the original incestuous phrase will call something a “big mother” and think nothing of it.  Even television commercials, where the two-word phrase for oral sex would be banned, use the term “sucks.”  I once argued with a newsroom editor about the term SNAFU, a World War II term.  The editor said it stood for “Situation normal, all fouled up.”  I suggested his history was a little shaky, the “F” originally stood for the common term for carnal knowledge.  He was not born until long after the war ended, but remains convinced that his interpretation is correct.

I once heard a young person say, “Our generation swears; get over it.”  There is no getting over it, or not.  Allowing the language to descend into the mud, and then defending it as a generational thing is simply proof of the parallel decline of our society in general.  It is not, in itself, the problem; it is the Check Engine Soon light on the dashboard of life.  A skilled speaker has no need of vulgarities.  If you have a reasonable working vocabulary, you can disparage a person’s intelligence, ancestry, and personal hygiene without using a single vulgar word.  You can be funny, express joy or sorrow, agreement or dissent, and do it in civil terms.  

We may, or may not be able to reverse the general decline of the American society, but we can learn to speak our language, native or learned, with the thin covering of civilization in place, and intact.

The first amendment to the constitution of the United States reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The courts have, predictably, broken this single, run-on sentence into its component parts.

• Religion
• Speech
• The Press
• Assembly
• Redress

Each of these parts has seen egregious attacks, and excessive defenses over the years.  My observation today has to do with the press. 

It has been an open secret for many years that ski resorts in Colorado, and one would suppose elsewhere, spin the weather reports to favor snow.   They find ways to overstate snowfall without actually lying about it.  One can hardly blame them; snow translates directly into revenue. For example, after a recent snowstorm, Vail Resorts told the media that it had shut down its headquarters because of heavy snow. They didn’t mention that those offices are in low country, 75 miles from its closest slopes. The slopes were warm and sunny that day.  It’s probably harmless.  Still, Bob Berwyn, a reporter for Summit Daily News, had the temerity to write, “I sometimes wonder whether the ski industry wouldn’t benefit more from being completely transparent about weather and snowfall with its customers, but when snow equals money, perhaps that’s expecting too much.”

The Vail Resorts called the editor.  The editor told the reporter that he had, “a lot of groveling to do.”  The reporter didn’t grovel.  The reporter is currently looking for work.

We regularly defend the right of any reporter to say anything he or she wants as long as it’s true, and without malice.  We protect reporters even when they knowingly violate national security by reporting things that give aid, comfort, and valuable intelligence to our enemies.  Just don’t irritate an advertiser. 

With the business world arguably posing as large a threat to national security as any enemy, I believe it’s time to reign in the power of corporations to shape the news in their favor.  The problem is, I see no workable way to do that.  If any of you have a solution, let me know.

Tags: Bob Berwyn, Summit Daily News, Vail