Neighborhood. Community. 

Internet. Smartphone. Texting.

What do those things have in common? Well, the first two are starting to fade. The last three are contributing to the fade.

Community used to have a different feeling when I was growing up. It could mean the people who lived next door (I knew them all when I was growing up on Herkimer Street in Waterbury, Conn. - the Claffeys next door, the Palombas across the street) .Today, I live in Washington, D.C. I know the neighbor we share a wall with. But I have no idea who lives two doors down.

 In Cleveland, fortunately, Charles Ramsay didn’t run the other way when he heard a scream for help. He felt a sense of community. Of neighborhood.  Someone who lived next door – a young woman he never knew even existed  next door – screamed for help and he crashed in the door to get her out.  And a 10-year mystery that everyone thought had ended in tragedy now was ending in a sense of community. 

I use the Internet as much as the next guy. I text (though mostly because a few people I know feel that’s the most convenient way to communicate. It’s not my first instinct). But the generations after mine are being raised with  Smartphones. With texting. With video games where you kill people and feel no emotion at all. With chat rooms where, sometimes, you even take on a different persona to make a connection. Dishonest as that connection may be.

No single invention is responsible, of course. But these different ways of communicating, while bringing more efficiency in many ways, also separate us rather than unite us. I work in an office as modern as any other – we all have computers, phones, smartphones.  I walk in the office a lot (I once got the “hall monitor” award because I walk so often). I almost never call someone who is in the office. I walk to his or her office. I like the face-to-face for a variety of reasons. I like the connection. But that’s not the norm. Some apparently would rather leave a voice message or send an email and wait hours to hear back from someone who may sit 50 feet away. Not so efficient in my mind. 
 
All these little breaks from personal connection, I think, contribute to the dividing, not uniting, of us as individuals, and maybe even of our leaders in  many ways. 

Heroes are few and far between. Charles Ramsay is not a hero. He is, though, a good neighbor. Something that is becoming even rarer.

 My friend Mike Johnson put together New GOP Forum a few years ago and features writings by well-known (mostly, because I am one)
Republican Hill, executive branch and private sector communicators of the grey-haired persuasion. Mike’s latest column there now -- http://www.newgopforum.com/ -- focuses on the lack of fact-checking in the
media. Why does that lack exist? Because the goal now is ”get it first.” When Mike and I were journalists the goal was: “First, get it right.”
 
It’s one more crack in the breakdown of traditional journalism – which existed primarily pre-cable news and pre-Internet, far as I’m concerned. As our culture has moved to immediate gratification, the media moved to 24/7 talking heads presenting their views, and not reporters presenting facts. A sad occurrence to those of us former ink-stained wretches. Instead of having real reporters on air, we have “the best political team on television”!!!!! Or, former political operatives going on TV to make money and get more exposure for their political consulting businesses (and their speaking fees)!!!! We consistently have “breaking news” even though often that news broke hours before and isn’t really breaking anymore!!!!!!

We have more exclamation points too. And those damn crawls along the bottom of the screen that partially block whatever video they are showing.

I went to a book party for a journalist friend last night. Most attendees were of the grey-haired variety because this friend is a “real”reporter, as we’ve come to define some journalists these days (a “real” reporter pretty much is someone
raised in the business pre-1990, at least that’s my definition). Most of those book-party guests aren’t in journalism anymore because they got bought out, or left the business in frustration, or their papers folded. These were the people who focused on who, what, when, where, why, the five W’s of journalism. They focused on verifying their facts, not just jumping into print, or pixels, so they can be first.

In those, let’s call them the “old days,” if you got a fact wrong, it could cost you your job. Today, if you get a fact wrong, it could get you a better-paying job on television, especially if you’re young and attractive (female or male). Or maybe even --  what seems to be the aspiration of too many these days -- a reality show!!!!!

I once had a very successful former politician tell me she was getting a lot of her “news” from watching Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert…on the COMEDY channel!!!!

Folks, that’s COMEDY not news. Then again ... I could be wrong.

Language not only matters (cliché though that is) but begets itself,
which can be a problem, too.
 
Take the last week or so.  President Obama told the Syrian government, through the media, that proof of their use of chemical weapons against their own people would cross a "red line." In fact, it would even be a  "game-changer." According to news reports, the White House went through a weekend of meetings to discuss the President's posturing (important in diplomacy) regarding Syria  and how he should phrase it. The language he wound up using at a press conference was not what they agreed to and apparently was more direct than they intended.

This post has nothing to do with the policy the President is trying to signal. My issue is the language chosen.
 
I think that "sound bites" come into play here. When I worked in government/politics, the "sound bite" was the key to the day, in that a good one could get you on the news that night (pre-heavy cable presence), and wasn't getting on TV the key to politics (still is, unfortunately). So, I'm guessing, part of the president's thinking was, how do I get maximum attention, domestically and internationally, for what I'm saying. Thus, "red line" and "game-changer." 
 
In diplomatic speak, you also have to think what a classic American expression will mean to someone in another country. I once asked someone from another country if he had a cold, for example, and he responded "no it's very
warm here." Different meanings in different places.
 
I think that the puffed up jargon, clichés, sound bites and metaphors of recent years are contributing not only to a breakdown of the language, but a breakdown in our culture. We find short cuts to expressing ourselves which results in us using words that are not as precise as they should be. Thus we "send the wrong message" than we intend sometimes.
 
The late Bill Safire, a former Nixon speechwriter, wrote the "On Language" column for the New York Times.  
 
Safire wrote about the phrase "game-changer", which he thought should be hyphenated, by the way. Not surprising, he traced the origin of the phrase to sports, which are, after all, "games" (versus, say, avoiding war which is  not a game).  He
summed up his thoughts on game-changer by saying:
 
"Will this trope find a permanent place in dictionaries? Some players in the antedating game doubt it, recalling the feverish use of “game plan” in the ’70s. And when was the last time you heard “the name of the game,” the nonce
phrase of which everything was all about? Game-changing may one day go the way of those, hyphen and all." 
 
Apparently, at the moment, "game-change" is here to stay. Merriam-Webster now lists the phrase in its dictionary. It sources its first-known use to 1993. 

I had lunch a recently with an experienced Republican operative who happens to be from the South Carolina congressional district where Mark Sanford, the govenor who said he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail but really was in Argentina with his mistress, is running for redemption. I also had dinner recently with a Democratic fund-raiser.

The Demcrat and our other dinner companions (all three are Democrats) were joking about Sanford's travails and saying there is no way he can win the special election. The Republican at lunch said he would win easily (Note: he said this before Sanford was nailed for trespassing in his ex-wife's house watching the Super Bowl with  his young son and "trespassing," meaning he violated his divorce agreement). When my Republican friend said the ex-governor would win, I questioned him, too, because my New England-based political views quesioned how anyone with his latest pecadillos (the paramour lie, lying to his staff and the citizens of South Carolilna, introducing his young son to his now-fiance, former paramour, at his primary victory party on stage, the treaspassing) could pass voter muster. He smiled and said, "he does a good job" and went on to say that's what voters there care about. 

My point? Too often I've been in potical discussions with my more liberal friends who assume they can read a Congressional distirct despite not ever having set foot in it. Years ago, when I was at the Republican National Committee, and the GOP hadn't elected a black congressman in more than 50 years, we had several Africian-Americans running for Congress. We had to decide who best to invest our money in. Conventional wisdom was it should go to a candidate in Ohio who had some national visiblity and was a great candidate. I am from the old 5th District in Connecticut and a black candidate was running there against a former Congressman, who hailed originally from the neighboring distirct. My DC colleagues saw this as a win for the Democrat since the opponent had already been in Congress and was well known. Being from that district, I saw it as carpet-bagger, district shopping so he could get back into office, something those voters (and many voters) don't like.  and I helped our candiate develop a strategy leveraging the carpet-bagger criticism. We won. The candidate in Ohio lost.

So, much as I can't see Sanford crawling back into office - I'll wait and see. Locals know better than I do how to read an election and electorate.