Michael Agar terms a rich point that concept which is “central, slippery and interesting,” so “puttied… into far-reaching networks of association and diverse situations of use . . . . that it’s almost impossible to lift the piece of language out.” One indication of a rich point is “immediate native-speaker recognition followed by wild disagreement.” Hero is such a concept. Is there such a thing as a hero per se? Most people believe they know what a hero is, even if they have difficulty defining the term. Some even take offense at the suggestion that heroism is not intrinsic, but projected. “Hero,” in the modern sense, is primarily an interpretive concept: that is, one whose actions are worthy [of note, of admiration, of emulation]. It lives in the Saussurian negotiation between signifier and signified. The hero is a sign; but of what, and for whom? Is heroism simply a reactionary glorification of masculine hegemony, of female passivity and helplessness – or has its application evolved? Has the concept been stretched so thin it has no meaning at all? This paper examines recent journalistic usage of the three related words “hero,” “heroism,” and “heroic.” It also looks at related media concepts such as sports heroes and superheroes. It attempts to close-read the specific ideologies they reflect, in order to gain insight into the American idea of the hero, and what Americans seek from their role models.