I am fascinated by the weather, and sometimes I find myself obsessively watching the news to learn more about it. This winter, while watching the weather, I noticed something — the terms that are being used to describe the weather have changed.
For example, it’s common in Syracuse to have lake-effect snow. In the case of Syracuse, this occurs when wind blows air over Lake Ontario, picking up moisture and then discharging it as snow over central New York. One day, while watching a report on lake-effect snow, the weather forecaster referred to it as a “lake-effect snow machine.” Then, I heard a national weather forecaster use this term to describe the lake-effect snow that fell on Erie, Pennsylvania. Then, during the nor’easter a few weeks ago, several different media companies referred to it as a “bomb,” which also struck me as unusual. The words “machine” and “bomb” seem unsuitable to describe something as natural as lake-effect snow.
But lake-effect snow is a natural process; it exists regardless of man. The forecaster could have said there was “an intense band of lake-effect snow,” “an exceptional amount of snow” or even simply, “lake-effect snow.” It would entail the same meaning. By attributing mechanical qualities to lake-effect snow, the media is declaring that there is no possible way that nature could be this efficient — only a machine could. Yet, we forget that there are very efficient, wholly organic processes, such as the energy that a plant stores from the sun.
Mechanical terms don’t always belong in certain areas of our life. If we do not define the boundaries of usage with these words, we are subscribing to a specific way of thinking that limits our thoughts and condenses our worldview.
A similar limit on thinking occurs when terms like “bomb” are used. When you are watching or reading the news, your mind subconsciously waits for words such as “bomb,” “shooting” and “Trump.” These words are buzzwords. When your brain spots these words it automatically focuses your attention, and it triggers a preconscious emotional reaction.
We are being conditioned to subconsciously ignore the rest of the news story, and we are not objectively thinking about the news itself. We already have feelings that stem from these buzzwords that are waiting to be expressed, rather than created, when we see the event.
This reaction is shown with titles of articles, especially in the mainstream news. The titles are written to subconsciously hook you into reading or watching them, and if you look at any news website right now, I guarantee that the subject of at least one, if not more, of the articles is “Trump” because his name has become a buzzword. His name, for some, creates instantaneous anger and for others, instantaneous defense — regardless of what the rest of the article says.
If we passively accept these terms into our lives, we are allowing our thoughts to be limited. But if we are conscious of these terms and think critically about their context, we reduce their ability to limit our thoughts.
Joshua Hummell is a senior double-majoring in classical and Near Eastern studies and history.