“How old would you be
if you didn’t know how old you were?”
– Hall of Fame
pitcher “Satchel” Paige, who played professionally into his… nobody knows for
sure when.
This is a minuscule matter, which turned into a post when
the issue rose to my attention twice. There
are blogatorial standards for these things.
One mention of an issue’s a “Hm.”
Two mentions in relatively
close proximity’s a “Whoa.” Similar to a
“Hm”, albeit a deeper, more eye-opening reaction.
I announce up front that this is an “age-related annoyance”,
considerably less serious, however, than those displayed in gerontologically-oriented
blogs, to which this one, admittedly, occasionally resembles.
Okay. I’ve got to look
something up now. Hum to yourselves a
moment. I’ll be right back.
……………………………………………………
Too much. I was
actually back eight dots ago.
Sorry. Sometimes my finger gets
stuck on the key.
Okay. Here’s the
thing. I told you it’s small, but it
brings up some interesting concerns.
Resulting from the recent re-emergence of Murphy Brown – “What do you think of it,
Earlo?” I think it feels slow. – there
have be numerous articles in the newspaper concerning the hit series’ resurrection,
and in those articles, the show’s star of course is prominently mentioned and equally prominently mentioned is her
age.
Which is the article I read said she was 78.
My first question – not just for that article but for
virtually all newspaper articles I have ever read is –
“Why was it necessary to mention her age?”
You see it all the time.
“Jessica Musgrave, 77,
swallowed a hundred-and-thirty-five goldfish.”
Which is what, in
terms of my ultimate “takeaway”?
“That’s a lot for
her age”?
It’s not an “age” story!
The woman ate more than eleven
dozen goldfish! That is certainly a
record. They don’t print stories,
“Woman Sets Near
Record Swallowing Goldfish.”
That’s only a “near story.”
Either it’s a story about a record, or it’s not a story at
all. Neither has anything to do with her
age. (Nor its being a made-up story
about swallowing goldfish.)
The Murphy Brown
story is about Murphy Brown. What difference does the star’s age make? The article was not conceived as an “Age is
no barrier” pep talk.
“And she stands up!
Hardly ever leaning on her desk!”
Candice Bergen’s age is mentioned because that’s what they
do in newspapers. They include the
subject’s age whether it is relevant or not.
Which would be today’s “stand alone” gripette were it not for a worse part, which is the following.
Shortly thereafter, I read another article about Candice
Bergen, and in that one
they said she was 72!
So,
Not only did they mention her age when the story had nothing
to do with her age,
In one of those
articles – since even “Satchel” Paige would not claim you can be two ages,
They got Candice Bergen’s age wrong!
Which brings back Paige’s original question,
“How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you were?”
For the individual in question, beyond “Get it right, will
ya?”, it makes minimal practical difference.
For them, it’s
“I am a day older than yesterday.”
But for the perceiver?
“She looks good
for 78.”
“Yeah? How does she
look for 72?”
You see what I mean?
Suddenly that’s in your head, and you are seeing the same
person two different ways.
Also, our times and culture being what they currently are,
hiring a 78 year-old feels perceptibly more precarious than hiring a 72
year-old, the difference between “She’s a grandmother” and “She’s a great-grandmother.”
On whose life does the show take out more insurance?
And then there is the perennial concern of
“What exactly do we know for sure?”
One “Reliable Source” says she is 72; another pegs her at
78. Which one is actually correct? And what if it’s not that erring “Reliable Source’s”
fault, having gotten their
information from a “Reliable Source” that somehow made a mistake?
Say I had never read that second article and I wrote a post
saying Candice Bergen was 78. I’d be
telling you a lie.
At least according to Wikipedia
– that’s what I went to look up – who says she’s 72.
Like Wikipedia is
always correct.
Solution:
Leave out the ages unless they’re important.
Like that woman who just died at 111.
You want to know
about that. It’s an impressive
accomplishment and gives you something to shoot at.
Something far distant from 73.
I look at it as an encouragement. She's 72 (or 78) and still working. I'm 67 and still working - for now. It gives me hope that, since I can't afford to retire yet, my employer might be less apt to say, "let's get rid of the old guy," because they see Ms. Bergen still going.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure 72 is right. She's the daughter of a star, so there's pretty good attestation for her birth in 1946. I think she looks great, and I'm happy to see her on my screen again. Though I'd probably be even happier if she were doing something new.
ReplyDeletewg
I agree with Earl, it's not relevant but if they have to do it they should print it like a car for sale ad. "A 1946 Candice Bergen was mentioned today in a blog written by a clean, highway driven only, low mileage, some small leaks 1945 Pomerantz."
ReplyDeleteAsk her, she probably knows...75!
ReplyDelete