Icons Aren’t What They Used to Be
20th July 2009
Apparently journalists don’t know the meanings of the words they use. Who knew?
The term “icon” has two basic meanings, neither of which apply to Michael Jackson, Greg Norman, Ed McMahon, most Scottish mystery writers or anyone from Paul Revere & the Raiders. Originally it referred to sacred images painted on tiny wooden panels back in the days of the Eastern Empire. Thus, in theory, Farrah Fawcett’s famous ’70s poster could vaguely qualify as an icon. But for the longest time the word “icon” was used to refer to what Webster’s describes as “an object of uncritical devotion.” No more. Today it is used to describe anyone reasonably famous who is completely over the hill, on a respirator, or stone dead. Or, in the case of Mickey D’s, beloved but inanimate.
This is just another case of hyperventilating journalists hijacking an otherwise admirable language because they are desperate to insert an infectious banality into their work and don’t care if it belongs there. There is no such thing as “the mother of all stimulus packages.” One cannot go in search of the Holy Grail of killer apps for the iPhone. The English language doesn’t work that way. It’s flexible, but it’s not stupid.