Sick of the word "hero" in the media

[Goofball]

Good lord, but do they ever over-use that word. It has now lost its value because of its over use. This is the article that was the last straw for me on this one:

http://www.today.com/moms/waiter-hai...rome-1B8038223

If you don't feel like reading the whole tripe-filled story, the title is "Waiter hailed as hero after standing up for boy with Down syndrome." Basically, the guy refused to serve another customer who asked to be moved away from a kid with Down syndrome in a restaurant. Sorry, not a hero.

The above is an extreme example of media misuse of the word. But one that really bugs me, in more general terms, is when the media refer to the victims of a natural disaster, mass shooting, or other awful event as "heroes."

Dieing an untimely and/or violent death, no matter how horrible and sad, does not make a person a hero.

Unless you save somebody else from death or harm, and put your own person at risk to do so, you are not a hero.

But the point is moot, since the word doesn't mean anything anymore. We need to come up with a new one.

[johnhughthom]

It's even worse when used in relation to sports people. Having a natural aptitude for a sporting discipline is not heroic.

[Montmorency]

Slavery times.

[Papewaio]

Dictionary:

"Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: \ˈhir-(ˌ)ō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hērōs
Date: 14th century
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : submarine 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol"

[Crazed Rabbit]

The above is an extreme example of media misuse of the word. But one that really bugs me, in more general terms, is when the media refer to the victims of a natural disaster, mass shooting, or other awful event as "heroes."

Dieing an untimely and/or violent death, no matter how horrible and sad, does not make a person a hero.

Unless you save somebody else from death or harm, and put your own person at risk to do so, you are not a hero.

You are correct. But why is this word misused? I suspect a yearning for some sensationalism and desire to celebrate even mediocre things.

CR

[Montmorency]

There are no heroes; I have never seen any. What I have seen is men doing their duty worthily and conscientiously[...]

vs.

We thought, however, that any battle, even a disastrous one for us, reveals the true heroes and feats, about which one should and must write![...]hundreds of men wearing quilted jackets, greatcoats, ushanka hats, doing the sleepless labour of war, carrying mines under their arms like loaves of bread, peeling potatoes by the pointed trunk of a heavy gun, squabbling, singing in low voices, telling about a grenade fight during the night. They are so majestic and matter-of-fact in their heroism[...]Looking back now, one can see that heroism was present during every moment of daily life for people in the division.

or

Soldier Nazarenko carried two heavily wounded men out of the line of fire and after that he killed ten fascist soldiers, one corporal and one officer. When someone said to him: ‘You’re a hero,’ he answered: ‘Is this heroism? To reach Berlin – that’s heroism!’

or

Ramming isn’t heroism. Heroism is to shoot down as many of them as possible.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is exactly what you think this is.

[Fragony]

I don't know how it is with you English-speaking lot but it's a word we use very casually here, can mean no more then 'what a good guy'. It's of course not an act of heroism but it certainly something people can say when someone is doing the right thing. That's in Dutch though.

[rajpoot]

Considering all the depressing news one gets to read everyday, occasional articles about how someone did a selfless good deed are required. And sure the word hero is a overused, but personally I don't find it that bothersome. I don't think it reduces the significance of the word when used for more heroic people. There is many different kinds of heroism after all.

[InsaneApache]

Good lord, but do they ever over-use that word. It has now lost its value because of its over use. This is the article that was the last straw for me on this one:

http://www.today.com/moms/waiter-hai...rome-1B8038223

If you don't feel like reading the whole tripe-filled story, the title is "Waiter hailed as hero after standing up for boy with Down syndrome." Basically, the guy refused to serve another customer who asked to be moved away from a kid with Down syndrome in a restaurant. Sorry, not a hero.

The above is an extreme example of media misuse of the word. But one that really bugs me, in more general terms, is when the media refer to the victims of a natural disaster, mass shooting, or other awful event as "heroes."

Dieing an untimely and/or violent death, no matter how horrible and sad, does not make a person a hero.

Unless you save somebody else from death or harm, and put your own person at risk to do so, you are not a hero.

But the point is moot, since the word doesn't mean anything anymore. We need to come up with a new one.

Couldn't agree more. Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander must be feeling disapointed to be lumped in with our current lot.

[Fragony]

Considering all the depressing news one gets to read everyday, occasional articles about how someone did a selfless good deed are required. And sure the word hero is a overused, but personally I don't find it that bothersome. I don't think it reduces the significance of the word when used for more heroic people. There is many different kinds of heroism after all.

Yeah, a selfless act qualifies, or just an act of kindness will do. 14 year old guy jumped in the ice-cold water to save a cat this week, he never conquered earth but imho he's a hero. This guy is also a hero, he could have lost his job, but acted on his morality.

[Husar]

Couldn't agree more. Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander must be feeling disapointed to be lumped in with our current lot.

Their deeds were probably just propaganda and heroes like Samson, David, Moses and so on precede them anyway.
One problem with having only military heroes is that it promotes warfare as though it were anything but a horrible part of life.
Are there any classical heroes who are not heroes due to military deeds, comparable to a man who walks into a fire and saves ten children?
In a way the heroes of a culture represent the values of that culture, no? So while I tend to have that view myself, just because the greeks only valued men who slaughtered a hundred other men and raped their women, there's no reason we have to use the same definition, or do we?

[InsaneApache]

Oh I dunno, sounds like it might have been their idea of fun back in the day.

[Papewaio]

So if you're too successful a hero you're a villan ie Genghis Khan?

[rajpoot]

So if you're too successful a hero you're a villan ie Genghis Khan?

I'm pretty sure he's considered a hero in Mongolia.

Whoever excels in what we prize appears a hero in our eyes.

[Montmorency]

But attend to those who analyze; they don't note with what speed time flies.

[Pannonian]

Couldn't agree more. Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander must be feeling disapointed to be lumped in with our current lot.

But even Alexander, Hector et al can't compare with the British Grenadiers.

[The Lurker Below]

"Are there any classical heroes who are not heroes due to military deeds"

I'm sure there's many like Archimedes, who would fit

"4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion"

I was also wondering what conquerors and mythical figures have to do with heroism.

[Goofball]

You are correct. But why is this word misused? I suspect a yearning for some sensationalism and desire to celebrate even mediocre things.

CR

Thinking back on it, it seems to have started with 9/11. The fact is that there were an awful lot of real heroes that day, so the media got the opportunity to use the term a lot more than they normally would. But I think that that overdose (if you will) of heroes, combined with the the lasting impact of 9/11 on the American psyche, has created a bit of a hero addiction on the part of the public, which the media will keep feeding as long as it sells papers and generates high ratings.

[Husar]

So if you're too successful a hero you're a villan ie Genghis Khan?

Or Bill Gates, Mao, Castro, Steve Jobs and so on. What all these persons show yet again, is that the definition of who is a hero is incredibly subjective. One person's hero is another person's villain. I would classify Dietrich Bonhoeffer a hero but the government at the time hanged him as a traitor. In the same way as The Lurker Below said, Ghengis Khan is a hero in Mongolia but I doubt he was one in the countries terrorized by the Mongols. Thus I said who is a hero depends on what a society values.

If you think standing up for little disabled kids is of great value and improves our society, then yes, the waiter is a hero of sorts because he risked his job and income for a little disabled boy. It seems like such a small deed but losing your job is a big deal usually and I wouldn't deny that there was a chance of him losing his job over it. A small thing compared to putting your own life on the line but then again medals also come in grades, no?

[Gregoshi]

Thinking back on it, it seems to have started with 9/11.

Yeah, 9/11 kicked off the current hero-worship craze...and like you, it has been annoying me since. I think it wouldn't bother me as much if there were qualifiers - "he is a hero to us." or "she is a hero to the homeless", etc. In many cases in the media today, "hero" unqualified lessens the deeds of what one thinks of as classic heroes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are a few classical "Heroes" who weren't violent, in my opinion. Socrates surely counts--the man was forced to drink poison for speaking his mind. One of the first recorded martyrs of free speach.

Socrates was not forced to kill himself. If you read Apology, the way the Greek system worked was that if found guilty, both the accuser and the defendant chose and argued for a punishment for the defendant and the jury would then vote on which punishment it would be. The sentiment (implied) among the jury was that since Meletus asks for nothing less than death, if Socrates had suggested exile instead, he would have been given exile, no one really wanted him dead except the prosecution (who were among those that Socrates habitually ridiculed).

Instead Socrates angers the jury on purpose by proposing he pay an extremely small fine and be given free meals at (some fancy place in Athens, I don't recall the name) usually reserved for people who have won in the Olympics. So obviously the jury votes roughly 3:1 in favor of death.

Then in the very next dialogue (Crito I think it is), Socrates has had ample time to escape from jail and indeed it is again implied that everyone expects to escape from jail and that will be the end of the whole affair. The whole dialogue is his reasoning why he won't escape and instead will face his death sentence.

I still think Socrates is a hero in that he stood up and was not afraid of being executed or in defending his practices and opinions, but once the initial decision by the jury came in as "guilty", he purposely becomes stubborn and arrogant to force the situation he was in. The only person that really forced him to drink hemlock was himself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's hard to ascribe simple arrogance to his actions. He was acting out of profound (and mostly good) beliefs that he held with utter conviction even when he didn't have to.

In terms of using Hero as someone who sets the highest kind of example, Socrates applies imo.

Very true, I would agree with that.

In regards to the OP, I think that the problem is that American culture puts a lot of emphasis on choice in regards to your "hero" status. If you chose to do the right thing rather than be apathetic, you are av hero because most people assume that the common response is the apathetic. I like that NBC show, "What would you do?" which tests people in those type of situations and shows what the results actually are.

But in truth no choice is made in a vacuum, people call hurricane victims heroes because they "chose" to rebuild, to survive, but in reality there isn't really any other option other than dying in the streets. What do you expect people to do? Likewise with the down syndrome kid, it is noted in the article that the family are regulars to that location. They are not another face in the crowd of people that waiter serves every day.

What makes a hero is to break out of the familiar or the comfortable and dare to tread new ground at a possible cost to yourself. Doing the right thing for an incentive isn't really altruism imo, the incentives must be against you doing the right thing, just as they were for Socrates.

But people are desperate to only hear nice things about the world to counter balance the constant "shock news" that mainstream media pushes out for ratings, so the same media hypes up moments like this to a level it doesn't really deserve.

It's like the movie "The Breakfast Club". Everyone I know absolutely hates me when I say that I think the movie is absolute dogshit. They always go on the same spiel about how the movie shows the breaking down of cliques and these high school students learn about how they are all more than the groups they are a part of. To which I reply, "Yeah, they all learn basic fucking humanity 101. Everyone is a human, not an image." In a way, the same anger OP feels about the abuse of the word "hero" is probably the same as the anger I feel when people lift The Breakfast Club up as the pinnacle of high school morality and personal conduct that everyone should strive for.

[Pannonian]

Are there any classical heroes who are not heroes due to military deeds, comparable to a man who walks into a fire and saves ten children?
In a way the heroes of a culture represent the values of that culture, no? So while I tend to have that view myself, just because the greeks only valued men who slaughtered a hundred other men and raped their women, there's no reason we have to use the same definition, or do we?

Didn't the Greeks idollise their athletes?

[Husar]

Didn't the Greeks idollise their athletes?

Possible, but this thread gave me the idea that some people think only soldiers and possibly firefighters can get hero status based on the greek military heroes mentioned and the fact that many americans think any soldier who dies is automatically a hero, regardless of how or why she/he died.

[rajpoot]

Possible, but this thread gave me the idea that some people think only soldiers and possibly firefighters can get hero status based on the greek military heroes mentioned and the fact that many americans think any soldier who dies is automatically a hero, regardless of how or why she/he died.

I don't think it's about how they die, it's about the profession itself. These are ordinary people who have the courage to accept the chance of death as a part of their daily job. Same with firefighters. And I think that is what counts. That they know the risks, and yet they are willing to do the job because it needs to be done.
Same can be said of a man who pulls off a daredevil stunt, although there, it's not as heroic because the risks he's taking are unnecessary.

[Montmorency]

Same can be said of a man who pulls off a daredevil stunt, although there, it's not as heroic because the risks he's taking are unnecessary.

Actually, the comparison may be apter than you think.

[rajpoot]

Actually, the comparison may be apter than you think.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
If you're saying this in the sense that sending soldiers to wars is unnecessary, I beg to differ.
If you mean that the soldier or firefighter who acts at the spur of the moment, risking his life, then.......I don't quite know. From HoreTore's thread I remember that one thing had been decided, all modern day heroics on the battlefield involve some slight degree of madness.

[Husar]

Don't tell me the old tale of people serving their country. That may be true for some of them, maybe even a majority, but certainly not for all of them, so the classification based on profession is silly. There are people who join the army because they don't think they can get a better job elsewhere, some do it due to a sense of adventure and others do it for the comrades or even to learn the trade of killing people as some gang members used to do (got kicked out if revealed though). The FFL, while I respect their skills a lot, is also an organization full of criminals and other people who want french citizenship and I'm not sure how high the risk to die is on average.
I'm also 100% sure that a lot of soldiers are good people as well but even they may have "minor reasons" to join like it being a family tradition, the army making someone more manly and whatnot. If my plumber dies in a car accident I don't call him heroic even though his job required to drive to my house and his service was invaluable for my quality of life. If some soldier dies in Afghanistan it's not inherently heroic, it's just very, very sad, but so is if an Afghan guy is set on fire or shot for helping our soldiers in trying to improve his country.

I'm not against soldiers in general, I just don't like giving people blanket cheques for joining an organization. The same is true for firefighters, we have voluntary firefighters here and most of their life seems to be about drinking and partying and then I heard someone copmplain about how they screwed up during an accident and someone may have died because they weren't properly prepared. Are these guys heroes just because they're technically firefighters? What about all the soldiers in history and today who murdered, tortured and raped, should they get hero status until proven guilty?

It's fine to support soldiers and thank them for their service but no profession automatically makes one a hero, that's actually what I consider overuse.

[Montmorency]

The FFL, while I respect their skills a lot, is also an organization full of criminals and other people who want french citizenship and I'm not sure how high the risk to die is on average.

As it so happens, Patry there was referring to the FFL.

They're not all criminals though, just as not every German there in the 50s was ex-SS.

What about all the soldiers in history and today who murdered,

See fourth quote in my post. Anyway, 'murder in war' sounds oxymoronic, as for most of human history there wasn't a strong conception of international law protecting POWs and civilians.

[HoreTore]

I actually got my letter drafting me in the home guard today.

Thanks to you all for considering me a hero!

Worst. Friday. Ever.


Anyway, I agree with the point of the thread; the word "hero" is used far too liberally. Quite a few of those called "heroic" soldiers/cops/firefighters/pilots/whatever should just be called "good" soldiers/cops/firefighters/pilots/whatever. And that should be considered an honour. Being good at your job doesn't seem like it's enough anymore, we have to go one higher. I see no reason for that, and it screws up the terms.