Gather 'round

A speaker asserts something rather alarming with assurance and the audience assumes the accuracy of that information. The more authority vested in that person the surer we are of care exercised when vetting information. If it's a topic that's strange or esoteric we either naively accept the interpretation or perhaps question some of the assumptions.

This past week I listened to someone give an interpretation to an ancient event. Their explanation struck an uncomfortable chord--one part accepted exposition and one part flavoring to add to the overall discourse.

We know of newspaper columnists who bend a story or create a story out of whole cloth in order to augment a point or add to the emotional impact of their story? Occasionally the newspaper realizes that the story, while poignant and attention drawing, didn't happen or didn't quite happen the way presented.

The wont to add to something said or written to amplify the message is a lure. I can think of three local columnists who succumbed. They probably told themselves that the story was of such import that one needed a hook to make certain that their audience might act.

So when I listened to the speaker, I understood how one wants the crux of the story, the message, to impact the listener. But I couldn't accept the amplification.

Don't we all want to scream listen?

Just find another hook.