Tim Graham pointed out to me that CNN had a real attachment to the word ‘lurid’ yesterday. As disturbing as this story is, do we need to use tabloid adjectives? If they are going to treat the story like that, why not follow it with pieces on the latest Hollywood scandal or alien abduction? They would do their counterparts at the National Enquirer proud.
Notice the systematic use of ‘lurid’ throughout the day! The Larry King people liked it so much they doubled up on "lurid" last night.
Dictionary.com has these definitions for lurid:
|1.||gruesome; horrible; revolting: the lurid details of an accident. |
|2.||glaringly vivid or sensational; shocking: the lurid tales of pulp magazines. |
|3.||terrible in intensity, fierce passion, or unrestraint: lurid crimes. |
|4.||lighted or shining with an unnatural, fiery glow; wildly or garishly red: a lurid sunset. |
|5.||wan, pallid, or ghastly in hue; livid. |
It's quite clear that the coverage itself is glaringly sensational and full of fierce passion and unrestraint.