Shock Jock Writers – Oh Yes, They Exist!

Shock-jock writers. Who are they? Think about it. We all know the name of the radio jock generally considered the epitome of the original broadcast shock-jocks. His name rhymes with “learn.” (I refuse to give him credit here – he offends me on so many levels.) If you haven’t a clue to my reference that’s OK; you’re not missing anything.

Somewhere underneath the vitriol diatribe, shock-jocks may have a valid point. But they apparently don’t feel comfortable enough with their normal personable charm (said with tongue in cheek) to attract your attention, so their agendas are punctuated with profanity and/or adjectives meant to disgust, berate, or shockingly suggest sexual exploitation.

Well, guess what? The world of authorship has its own breed of shock-jocks. What I’d like to offer is the viewpoint that if you’re a good writer, you don’t need tricks or trash-talk (fiction and erotica excluded) to make your points and gain a following.

Bloggers and writers of articles for content mills and even those who manage to tag into a reputable news site are often guilty of cheap ploys, trying to be seen in the overcrowded marketplace. Most readers simply want to know what you have to say about any given subject, written in compelling and educational prose. That doesn’t mean boring, but it also doesn’t include writing offensively. I know, I know, it seems no one has tolerance anymore and offense is taken as often as the common aspirin. But here was my recent experience …

In a dawn-mellow mood, coffee in hand, I researched for an article one morning and stumbled on a wire article for which the title belied its content. Of course, I didn’t know that until I clicked on the link. We authors often get carried away in the quest for catchy titles; if not too off-track, a pardonable but still pointless writing sin.

If you tease the reader without substance, you’re making an avoidable mistake – one thing writers should do is connect their title believably to their text. Or just like a musician, you’ll find yourself with a one-hit-wonder readership. I wish that was the only problem with this article.

The title was apparently contrived to rope in unsuspecting readers seeking real information about living alone. Instead, it bewitchingly sucked me in with an innocent premise that veiled its upcoming attack on my senses, which resulted in repulsion rather than interest.

Maybe if it hadn’t been in the first paragraph … and it wasn’t so freakin’ early in the morning …

“Once, perhaps, it was a designation that you were an old maid, destined to someday die alone and be devoured by your cat, if you were lucky. But what if that single life could be forever sustained? The stereotypes of the spinster cat lady or the hopeless, hapless bachelor, subsisting on TV dinners and bad Chinese takeout, comforting yourself with the warmth of the occasional lady friend, or the television-cum-laptop, are only based on the occasional extreme …” Seriously … that stopped me in my reading tracks.

I don’t know about you, but I have a very vivid imagination, able to easily visualize the scenarios captured in this writer’s dreadful text. There are just SO many other descriptive ways to address this topic without resorting to shock-jock writing that combines gross animalism with crass private sexual images.

Most of us know what can happen in dire death circumstances when by yourself, and the solo sex that goes on behind closed doors. But really … I’d much rather have read, “destined to someday die alone, a Friends rerun on the glaring TV screen ...” Not as gory and much easier on the senses, don’t you think?

Perhaps it’s a generational thing. I prefer to call it a couth sense of self. The writer was obviously trying to appeal to a youthful generation that seems to embrace shock-talk gleefully. Granted, the article admits the extreme stereotypes; however, for the mature or mature-minded of any age, confronted with (“spinster cat lady”) gross images of a meat-eating cat, or self-satisfying old man (“hapless bachelor”), shocks the senses right out of the desire to read more. Not to mention the rude and unflattering representation for the elderly reading it.

Now, if I’d been in the market for an article about preventing these types of scenarios when living alone … different mindset altogether. Of course, me being an irreverent “elderly,” I simply smiled wickedly with the knowledge that one day that writer will be one of us. ;-) I also imagine though, the feelings of those who read the article and sadly identify with the situation – I couldn’t simply ignore them without a say.

The message is actually convoluted and sends mixed signals –and still does not match the title. The metaphors suggest old people in the beginning, but goes on to apply solitude issues to a younger demographic. “Moving out of your parents' house or a college dorm shared with assigned roommates and into an apartment with friends is one rite of passage into adulthood.” This signifies youth and its single dilemma.

News articles are meant to inform; hopefully, with creative wit and intelligent writing. But after reading this article’s first couple of paragraphs, I tuned out to the reason I wanted to read it originally (a compelling title) and focused on the abhorrence caused by back-to-back disgusting images conjured by the descriptive phrases.

"In discussing Barbarism and Christianity I have actually been discussing the Fall of Rome."*

I would like to think I am not the only reader affected in this way; because if I am, and you find nothing wrong with these gross descriptions, then our world has indeed gone beyond common sense and decency to the type of degeneration that doomed the Roman Empire – excessive violence and sex (admittedly, mixed with a gigantic helping of greed and barbarism – sound familiar?). Or maybe I’m just overly sensitive to it these days … or that morning.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not against sex and thoroughly enjoy a book or article that I know is about the subject (and provides a riveting read). I object to its use, though, as a cheap thrill in a supposedly informative, unrelated article.

Violence, however, is objectionable to me in any form, and most especially when used for shock value. That includes the “natural” animalistic violence. I know it happens. But our society exploits waaaaay too much violence in too many forms; and personally, I’m sick of it. Most importantly it does not belong in such a graphic mental visual of an article written about living alone.

Did I finish reading that article? Nope. The writer lost me altogether; surely there are better written articles about living alone. Moving right along …

Cheers to your day!

* The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88), Edward Gibbon