Overuse of the word "UNPRECEDENTED"

Bringing our language into proper balance at such a critical time for our democracy

With all that’s going on in political and legal realms here in the United States, namely the four indictments, totaling 91 felony counts, of the 45th President of the United States, I’ve been hearing the word unprecedented thrown around ad nauseam. Though I was pretty sure from context clues what the word meant, I ultimately had to look up the definition to make sure I was using the word correctly. According to dictionary.com, unprecedented means:

“without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.”

To properly round out this discussion, I’m also including the definition of precedent:

“a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.”

I actually looked up precedent long before I looked up unprecedented. Which is why hearing the term unprecedented being used at every whim started to irritate me. Precedent is a legal term that has found its way into our mainstream conversations by way of the mainstream media. And as usual, whenever something more niche finds its way into the mainstream, it becomes overused, misused, and ultimately key narratives are lost.

When it comes to these indictments, I think it is important to separate what is truly unprecedented versus what we indeed have ample precedent for. What is truly unprecedented is very little. Our media has a tendency to disproportionately focus on the perceived historic nature of moments or what differentiates moments from others. To me, this sabotages key messaging and narratives. While the denotation of what the media is communicating may be accurate, the connotation that the public takes away usually misses the mark of what was intended.

For example, when there are historic firsts for women, people of color, or any marginalized group that becomes the headline. While technically correct, it brings more focus on the inequities that we constantly face and those not inclined towards the right side of history become more emboldened to diminish the accomplishment and cause more strife. To further illustrate this point, here is a more recent pop culture example:

Halle Bailey played the lead in the latest rendition of the Little Mermaid. All of the discussion was about the fact that a black woman was playing the lead character. Was there really a need to emphasize this fact? In my opinion, if the promotion just simply was about the remake of the Disney film, we probably wouldn’t have experienced the divisive rhetoric that ensued. Conversely when examining the stage play, Hamilton, I don’t recall any discussion about the racial makeup of the cast and any “mismatches” with the characters they portrayed. I believe this didn’t happen because there was no emphasis on the racial makeup of the cast versus the characters they played. And Hamilton has become one of the most popular Broadway shows enjoyed by diverse audiences.

Now back to the indictments…very little about what is actually happening is truly unprecedented. The crimes are not new. They are not novel. No new legislation is required. There is precedent for most of the charges. If no one is above the law, then incessantly describing the matters as unprecedented undercuts that ideal. Constantly saying unprecedented because of who is charged with the crimes erroneously leaves people questioning if the rules should apply to everyone, if we should indeed test the strength of our national ideals and laws. And please remember that the primary intent of our system of checks and balances was to prevent one-person rule. Monarchies, autocracies, and dictatorships are not supposed to be associated with the United States of America

Repeatedly saying that this whole saga is unprecedented leaves us weary and skeptical about our

national ideals being put the test and proven strong. That our system of checks, balances, and rule of law can work as designed even in the most unusual and high profile set of circumstances.

How the media describes matters of consequence MATTERS. I’m not a lawyer nor am I a journalist. However, I am a consumer of the news. Not as a news junkie but as one that would like to be informed. And for the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am one that is concerned that we suffer due to problems of our own making. And when it comes to the existential threat our democracy presently faces, we have to thoroughly examine how our language and discourse contributes to the frenzy, chaos, and fear when find ourselves grappling with day in and day out. To maintain the status quo is to remain out of balance in our discourse at a time when we can’t afford to remain out of balance. As the purveyors of our discourse, the media has a responsibility to not only to be technically correct but rhetorically correct.

Onward to Harmonious Balance,

Johanna

**For customized content requests,1:1 coaching and/or speaking inquiries, feel free to contact me.**