This semester flew by. Looking back, I can sincerely say that this class has been one of the most useful classes I've taken – not just compared to the classes from this semester but compared to the classes I've taken during my three years on this campus.
Out of the required journalism classes, this class has added on to my list of the few classes that have actually taught me something; I walked out of Greg 1 feeling more confident in my abilities as a journalist and a possible future copy-editor. This isn't an attempt to boost my semester grade or get a better curve on some of those in-class quizzes (yikes!), it's just my way of expressing how useful and helpful this class has been for me.
In one of the last lectures of the semester, we discussed changing the format of this class, and I agree with the ones who said that this class should be a pre-req for Reporting I and II. I think I would have done better in both classes and felt more knowledgeable about the newspaper industry in general if I had taken a copy-editing class before I began reporting. One of the biggest lessons that this class has taught me is that there are so many different aspects that go into making a quality newspaper what it is; in order to succeed in this business, journalists must be as well-rounded as possible – they can't just be reporters, they have to be copy-editors as well.
I wrote about the poor grammar used in text messages for my first blog entry. As much as I'd like to say that the quality of my text messages have changed, I'll admit that they haven't. But, I can say that I definitely catch myself more in my writing and use better grammar and punctuation than I have done in the past. And, I appreciate the players in the newspaper industry a lot more; so much unappreciated work is done behind-the-scenes just to produce good quality copy for readers.
Whether my profession lies in the nursing field or journalism field is still up in the air, but either way, I'm thankful because I've walked away from this class a little wiser.
Oh… and the cookies were a plus, too. =)
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
"The great quote question"
I visited a lot of websites related to journalism and ethics when I was doing research for the JOUR 420 paper. One of the websites I found was from Indiana University's School of Journalism. I referred back to it a lot but unfortunately, never cited it in my paper.
I just thought I'd share it with anyone who would be interested; it's a compilation of articles about different journalism ethic cases from different reporters. The articles are separated into various categories such as "Sensitive news topics," "Handling sources," "Invading privacy," and "Getting the story."
One of the articles relevant to our class was written by Doreen Carvajal, titled "The great quote question." In it, Carvajal questioned whether or not it was ethical for reporters and editors to clean up quotes in order to make them more grammatically correct.
The problem, Carvajal notes, is when cleaning up quotes takes away from the essence of the story and from the character of the source.
Several newspapers have guidelines about this type of thing, such as USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Los Angeles Times. Most of the guidebooks instruct reporters and editors not to change the quote unless it's ungrammatical. Reactions to these rules have varied. For example, The St. Petersburg Times received angry reactions from readers who were upset that a story quoted a black athlete speaking in "black dialect," while Eskimos asked an Alaskan newspaper to keep their "broken English" because they didn't want to appear white-washed.
This just provides insight into one of the many issues copy-editors have to deal with. There are so many factors to consider, such as the group of readers you may or may not offend and the tone of the article. If I was put in that situation, I'm not really sure what I would do. Obviously, as copy-editor, my first priority would be to make sure the story is as grammatically and factually correct as possible. But, what happens if doing so changes the whole tone of the piece?
This is exactly why Indiana University's website is so great; reading all of their articles helped me think about what I would do if I was put in those scenarios. It makes for an interesting read.
I just thought I'd share it with anyone who would be interested; it's a compilation of articles about different journalism ethic cases from different reporters. The articles are separated into various categories such as "Sensitive news topics," "Handling sources," "Invading privacy," and "Getting the story."
One of the articles relevant to our class was written by Doreen Carvajal, titled "The great quote question." In it, Carvajal questioned whether or not it was ethical for reporters and editors to clean up quotes in order to make them more grammatically correct.
The problem, Carvajal notes, is when cleaning up quotes takes away from the essence of the story and from the character of the source.
Several newspapers have guidelines about this type of thing, such as USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Los Angeles Times. Most of the guidebooks instruct reporters and editors not to change the quote unless it's ungrammatical. Reactions to these rules have varied. For example, The St. Petersburg Times received angry reactions from readers who were upset that a story quoted a black athlete speaking in "black dialect," while Eskimos asked an Alaskan newspaper to keep their "broken English" because they didn't want to appear white-washed.
This just provides insight into one of the many issues copy-editors have to deal with. There are so many factors to consider, such as the group of readers you may or may not offend and the tone of the article. If I was put in that situation, I'm not really sure what I would do. Obviously, as copy-editor, my first priority would be to make sure the story is as grammatically and factually correct as possible. But, what happens if doing so changes the whole tone of the piece?
This is exactly why Indiana University's website is so great; reading all of their articles helped me think about what I would do if I was put in those scenarios. It makes for an interesting read.
A disagreement with "The Findings in Brief"
I started reviewing for the JOUR 420 final over the weekend and have been re-reading the various assigned readings for lecture. One of the websites, "The Findings in Brief," described the results of a survey that polled journalists and the public about different aspects related to the newspaper industry.
When I read this article back in February, I agreed with the public's opinion on all points, including the public's belief that newspapers had too many factual errors and spelling/grammar mistakes in their papers, sensational stories were "over-covered" by the press just to sell newspapers and a newsroom's values and practices conflicted with reporters' values and practices at times.
But, when I re-read this article over the weekend, I realized that a semester of JOUR 420 had definitely changed my opinion about at least one point in the article:
"2 The public perceives that newspapers don't consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities. Journalists are much less critical of themselves."
Okay, so this statement may be true for reporters – on occasion. However, I don't think this holds true for copy-editors. I know I've repeated it time and time again in my entries, but this class has definitely given me a new-found appreciation for the work copy-editors do. They are the silent, steady behind-the-scene journalists that make the stories in a newspaper – or at least attempt to make them – as factual and grammatically correct as possible. Because of this work that they do, I think that they do, in fact, "demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities."
When I read this article back in February, I agreed with the public's opinion on all points, including the public's belief that newspapers had too many factual errors and spelling/grammar mistakes in their papers, sensational stories were "over-covered" by the press just to sell newspapers and a newsroom's values and practices conflicted with reporters' values and practices at times.
But, when I re-read this article over the weekend, I realized that a semester of JOUR 420 had definitely changed my opinion about at least one point in the article:
"2 The public perceives that newspapers don't consistently demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities. Journalists are much less critical of themselves."
Okay, so this statement may be true for reporters – on occasion. However, I don't think this holds true for copy-editors. I know I've repeated it time and time again in my entries, but this class has definitely given me a new-found appreciation for the work copy-editors do. They are the silent, steady behind-the-scene journalists that make the stories in a newspaper – or at least attempt to make them – as factual and grammatically correct as possible. Because of this work that they do, I think that they do, in fact, "demonstrate respect for, and knowledge of, their readers and communities."
Monday, April 27, 2009
Again, I'm expressing my naivety about the different factors of a newspaper business, but today's lecture about outsourcing copy editors was interesting and something that I never considered possible.
The idea of outsourcing is not a new concept to me; half the calls I make to "Customer Service Lines" get directed to someone overseas. Once, I even had a five-minute discussion with someone from the Philippines, who asked me where my parents were from and forgot about helping me with my Mac. Come to think of it, I don't even know who she figured out I was Filipino over the phone.
Anyway, outsourcing those types of jobs make sense; businesses that distribute their products throughout the country and nation-wide don't need to keep their jobs within the country, necessarily.
However, I feel that the newspaper industry should not jump on the bandwagon and outsource jobs. A newspaper, for the most part, is not a product that that is distributed throughout the country and read by millions of people (unless it's the New York Times, etc.). And, unlike a book – which someone brought up in class to compare to newspapers – newspapers are filled with content about the local community and read by that same target audience. I feel that it ruins the quality of a newspaper somewhat if someone from outside of that area edits content about places and events that they might never have even heard. It would be tough enough for a copy editor from the News-Gazette in Champaign-Urbana, for example, to edit copy for a newspaper in Kissimmee, Florida. The further the job gets outsourced, the harder it will become.
I think the reason this was even considered a possibility is because some people may not consider how important the job of a copy-editor is and how, just like reporters, it's necessary for a copy-editor to be familiar with the environment in which he or she works.
Roy Peter Clark acknowledged that copy-editors are usually the "last line of defense" and I don't understand why newspapers would want to risk that by outsourcing that "protection".
The idea of outsourcing is not a new concept to me; half the calls I make to "Customer Service Lines" get directed to someone overseas. Once, I even had a five-minute discussion with someone from the Philippines, who asked me where my parents were from and forgot about helping me with my Mac. Come to think of it, I don't even know who she figured out I was Filipino over the phone.
Anyway, outsourcing those types of jobs make sense; businesses that distribute their products throughout the country and nation-wide don't need to keep their jobs within the country, necessarily.
However, I feel that the newspaper industry should not jump on the bandwagon and outsource jobs. A newspaper, for the most part, is not a product that that is distributed throughout the country and read by millions of people (unless it's the New York Times, etc.). And, unlike a book – which someone brought up in class to compare to newspapers – newspapers are filled with content about the local community and read by that same target audience. I feel that it ruins the quality of a newspaper somewhat if someone from outside of that area edits content about places and events that they might never have even heard. It would be tough enough for a copy editor from the News-Gazette in Champaign-Urbana, for example, to edit copy for a newspaper in Kissimmee, Florida. The further the job gets outsourced, the harder it will become.
I think the reason this was even considered a possibility is because some people may not consider how important the job of a copy-editor is and how, just like reporters, it's necessary for a copy-editor to be familiar with the environment in which he or she works.
Roy Peter Clark acknowledged that copy-editors are usually the "last line of defense" and I don't understand why newspapers would want to risk that by outsourcing that "protection".
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Quality-Control Quandary
Before this semester, I never fully appreciated the role of a newspaper's copy editor. Sure, I've had my own fair share of editing a reporter's copy, fixing grammar and punctuation mistakes here and there, but that was about as far as my copy editing experience has taken me. As the semester winds down, however, I've realized that a copy editor's role is more important to a newspaper than I thought.
This article, "The Quality-Control Quandary," really brought to light how newspapers have been suffering because of the lack of copy editors in their newsrooms. The article questioned whether or not the credibility of newspapers' have gone down because of copy editor cutbacks and discussed how newsrooms are trying to adjust to the different forms of editing.
While some of these new forms of editing seem to work - newsrooms are compensating for their lack of copy editors by safeguarding the editorial process and requiring journalists to take more responsibility of their work - I have a problem with "back-editing" and "buddy editing." It's as if newsrooms are condoning publishing articles that may potentially have mistakes (grammar, punctuation and factual ones) because they can "just fix it later."
I understand that in this day and age, newsrooms are focusing on being the one to get the news out first. But, I'd rather risk being the last one to break the news instead of risking the possibility that my newsroom will gain a bad reputation for our poor editing and reporting skills.
It's sad that as the economy fails, newsrooms have to suffer with copy editor cutbacks. True, it's important to keep reporters, but it's also important to maintain credibility, and I believe copy editors are the right solution for that.
This article, "The Quality-Control Quandary," really brought to light how newspapers have been suffering because of the lack of copy editors in their newsrooms. The article questioned whether or not the credibility of newspapers' have gone down because of copy editor cutbacks and discussed how newsrooms are trying to adjust to the different forms of editing.
While some of these new forms of editing seem to work - newsrooms are compensating for their lack of copy editors by safeguarding the editorial process and requiring journalists to take more responsibility of their work - I have a problem with "back-editing" and "buddy editing." It's as if newsrooms are condoning publishing articles that may potentially have mistakes (grammar, punctuation and factual ones) because they can "just fix it later."
I understand that in this day and age, newsrooms are focusing on being the one to get the news out first. But, I'd rather risk being the last one to break the news instead of risking the possibility that my newsroom will gain a bad reputation for our poor editing and reporting skills.
It's sad that as the economy fails, newsrooms have to suffer with copy editor cutbacks. True, it's important to keep reporters, but it's also important to maintain credibility, and I believe copy editors are the right solution for that.
Monday, March 30, 2009
supposedly supposably is incorrect.
I spent the majority of my spring break in
The conversation amused me for several reasons:
Part of me couldn't believe that we were talking about grammar on our trip down to Florida, but a bigger part of me felt that we should have had that conversation sooner.
While this may not seem like a problem to many, I worry that a time will come when journalists, copy editors and editors alike will also become too ignorant/lazy to use the proper form of a word in sentences.
If we all make an effort to practice proper grammar now, hopefully that won't happen.
Oh, and for anyone who was wondering, "supposably" is not a word.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Would you print these Photos?
FIRST
If these four pictures of the late Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer ran together in a news story, I think they would gain the most attention. But, a newspaper should never run pictures for the sole purpose of sensationalism, and I think editors need to be sensitive of the situation and of the readers who will eventually pick up the paper and read / see the gruesome details. I would choose picture 2a. (which is the one of Dwyer holding the gun in front of him) because it captures the moment, without going overboard. Picture 1a. is somewhat confusing; if I saw that picture and didn't read the news article that accompanied it, I would think that Dwyer was defending himself. Pictures 3a. and 4a. are too much for a newspaper; readers can get the full effect of the story without having to see a picture of a gun in his mouth or the back of his head being blown up.
SECOND:
The biggest factor that I considered while looking at all of these pictures is the news-worthiness of each one. Are these photos the best ones to use to tell a story, or would other ones suffice that would give readers the same insight into an event? I also used gauged my first-impression on each picture; if I felt uneasy looking at it, I assumed that other readers would feel the same way.
I think picture 1 would be an appropriate photo to run in a newspaper, as long as a relevant story ran with it. This picture is both sad and riveting at the same time; you can feel the boy's grief over his dead dog. At the same time, the picture has taste; the dog is not mangled, the boy is not covered in its blood, etc. I believe this photo would enhance the article that accompanied it.
I was a little hesitant with my decision to run pictures 3 and 5, but my deciding factor was still the news-worthiness of each photo. Picture 3 reflects the aftermath of the gunman's shooting spree; without this photo, I don't think readers would fully understand the tragedy of this situation. The effect is different if someone were to read that a newspaper employee murdered seven, killed 13 and killed himself compared to if they saw a picture of one of the victim's. Granted, if you were able to fully identify who the victim was in the photo, I would not run it in respect to the victim and the victim's family.
I was disgusted with picture 5 – not because of the photo itself, but of the actions and context behind that photo. Because her identity is unknown and her face is obscured, I think this picture should be run in a paper. It spotlights how dangerous celebrations of that sort can be, and will give readers a better idea of what could happen. Instead of just reading about an unidentified woman who had her clothes torn off on Fat Tuesday, seeing this photo gives readers a better understanding of what happened and will hopefully make them think twice about their actions or attending an event like this in the future.
I would not run pictures 2 and 4 simply because I was slightly revolted when I looked at them. I feel that picture 2 is too intrusive; the photographer is capturing a family at a most vulnerable time. The family's wishes must be considered before running this photo; the parents might not want this picture made public, especially since their dead son's body can easily be seen at the bottom of the picture. I think this moment is too private and would cause too much grief for the family if they were to see it in the papers.
Thankfully, the boy was okay, but I was barely able to stomach looking at picture 4. I wouldn't appreciate waking up in the morning and seeing this picture splashed across the front page of my local newspaper, and although it is news-worthy, I believe the news article would be enough to inform readers about the incident. If this picture ran in a paper, I would view it as a result of poor taste and judgment.
If these four pictures of the late Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer ran together in a news story, I think they would gain the most attention. But, a newspaper should never run pictures for the sole purpose of sensationalism, and I think editors need to be sensitive of the situation and of the readers who will eventually pick up the paper and read / see the gruesome details. I would choose picture 2a. (which is the one of Dwyer holding the gun in front of him) because it captures the moment, without going overboard. Picture 1a. is somewhat confusing; if I saw that picture and didn't read the news article that accompanied it, I would think that Dwyer was defending himself. Pictures 3a. and 4a. are too much for a newspaper; readers can get the full effect of the story without having to see a picture of a gun in his mouth or the back of his head being blown up.
SECOND:
The biggest factor that I considered while looking at all of these pictures is the news-worthiness of each one. Are these photos the best ones to use to tell a story, or would other ones suffice that would give readers the same insight into an event? I also used gauged my first-impression on each picture; if I felt uneasy looking at it, I assumed that other readers would feel the same way.
I think picture 1 would be an appropriate photo to run in a newspaper, as long as a relevant story ran with it. This picture is both sad and riveting at the same time; you can feel the boy's grief over his dead dog. At the same time, the picture has taste; the dog is not mangled, the boy is not covered in its blood, etc. I believe this photo would enhance the article that accompanied it.
I was a little hesitant with my decision to run pictures 3 and 5, but my deciding factor was still the news-worthiness of each photo. Picture 3 reflects the aftermath of the gunman's shooting spree; without this photo, I don't think readers would fully understand the tragedy of this situation. The effect is different if someone were to read that a newspaper employee murdered seven, killed 13 and killed himself compared to if they saw a picture of one of the victim's. Granted, if you were able to fully identify who the victim was in the photo, I would not run it in respect to the victim and the victim's family.
I was disgusted with picture 5 – not because of the photo itself, but of the actions and context behind that photo. Because her identity is unknown and her face is obscured, I think this picture should be run in a paper. It spotlights how dangerous celebrations of that sort can be, and will give readers a better idea of what could happen. Instead of just reading about an unidentified woman who had her clothes torn off on Fat Tuesday, seeing this photo gives readers a better understanding of what happened and will hopefully make them think twice about their actions or attending an event like this in the future.
I would not run pictures 2 and 4 simply because I was slightly revolted when I looked at them. I feel that picture 2 is too intrusive; the photographer is capturing a family at a most vulnerable time. The family's wishes must be considered before running this photo; the parents might not want this picture made public, especially since their dead son's body can easily be seen at the bottom of the picture. I think this moment is too private and would cause too much grief for the family if they were to see it in the papers.
Thankfully, the boy was okay, but I was barely able to stomach looking at picture 4. I wouldn't appreciate waking up in the morning and seeing this picture splashed across the front page of my local newspaper, and although it is news-worthy, I believe the news article would be enough to inform readers about the incident. If this picture ran in a paper, I would view it as a result of poor taste and judgment.
Monday, February 23, 2009
I have a long list of pet peeves. Whenever something consistently tends to annoy me, I mentally add it my list (ie: self-check out counters at stores, people who don’t say “please” or “thank you”, etc.), and if I had the time, I’d rattle off some more of them.
I’m not sure if anyone else is as bothered by this as I am, but I just thought I would share it!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
To hyphen or not to hyphen ..
According to the AP Stylebook's Punctuation Guide, a hyphen is required when describing someone of dual heritage. For example, a person who considers himself Asian and American would be described as "Asian-American". The same goes for anyone who is Italian-American, Mexican-American, African-American and so on.
Once, I made the mistake of not including the hyphen in one of my JOUR 400 articles and after getting my paper back – red-ink-mark-ups and all – I never made that mistake again. It was a small lesson learned; if the AP Stylebook said there was a hyphen in between a proper noun and its adjective, then there would be a hyphen. No questions asked; it wasn't a big deal.
However, after taking several Asian American Studies classes, I learned that that particular hyphen placement is a very big deal to many in the Asian [hyphen] American community. In fact, that hyphen has been the cause of much controversy. Many believe that the hyphen between "Asian" and "American" indicates that Asian-Americans are different than other Americans; as if the hyphen is necessary to make people of Asian descent more "American".
It's amazing to me that the decision about where to place a small punctuation mark could have such big implications. I wonder if the Associated Press realized the debate that has stirred up due to this simple grammar rule.
For anyone interested, here are some links to read more about this issue:
Hyphen Magazine & Hyphenated American
Once, I made the mistake of not including the hyphen in one of my JOUR 400 articles and after getting my paper back – red-ink-mark-ups and all – I never made that mistake again. It was a small lesson learned; if the AP Stylebook said there was a hyphen in between a proper noun and its adjective, then there would be a hyphen. No questions asked; it wasn't a big deal.
However, after taking several Asian American Studies classes, I learned that that particular hyphen placement is a very big deal to many in the Asian [hyphen] American community. In fact, that hyphen has been the cause of much controversy. Many believe that the hyphen between "Asian" and "American" indicates that Asian-Americans are different than other Americans; as if the hyphen is necessary to make people of Asian descent more "American".
It's amazing to me that the decision about where to place a small punctuation mark could have such big implications. I wonder if the Associated Press realized the debate that has stirred up due to this simple grammar rule.
For anyone interested, here are some links to read more about this issue:
Hyphen Magazine & Hyphenated American
Sunday, February 8, 2009
"Newspaper Death Watch"
"Newspaper Death Watch" is such an optimistic title for a blog, isn't it?
As I typed in the website URL, I figured the website name was pretty self-explanatory and I would find a website dedicated to reporting on the decline of newspapers. I was right.
The website is a blog run by Paul Gillin, a technology journalist, who describes himself as a "newspaper junkie" and claims that he loves newspapers. But, if a person didn't read Gillin's "About Me" section before reading his posts, I believe he/she would think differently.
Gillin posts about anything related to the present-day "newspaper struggle"; he reports on media companies' dismal profits and newspapers throughout the country that are meeting their downfall, for example.
At first, I got the impression that Gillin had a very pessimistic viewpoint on the newspaper industry. After all, it's not very heartening reading his "newspaper obituaries" that list various newspapers that are publishing their last issue, laying off employees, etc. But, after reading a few of his recent posts, I realized that Gillin isn't being entirely pessimistic – he's just being very realistic about the future of this specific medium of journalism.
This website was an eye-opener for me, to say the least. Although I knew that print journalism was struggling, I never realized it was this bad – or at least, as bad as Gillin reports.
It is nice to know that the newspaper industry is "fighting back", however. In one of Gillin's posts, he writes about the "Newspaper Project", a campaign meant to emphasize how big of a role newspapers play in people's everyday lives. While it's a good sign to know that that newspapers are taking the "offense", as Gillin puts it, I find it sad that they even have to do this in the first place.
As I typed in the website URL, I figured the website name was pretty self-explanatory and I would find a website dedicated to reporting on the decline of newspapers. I was right.
The website is a blog run by Paul Gillin, a technology journalist, who describes himself as a "newspaper junkie" and claims that he loves newspapers. But, if a person didn't read Gillin's "About Me" section before reading his posts, I believe he/she would think differently.
Gillin posts about anything related to the present-day "newspaper struggle"; he reports on media companies' dismal profits and newspapers throughout the country that are meeting their downfall, for example.
At first, I got the impression that Gillin had a very pessimistic viewpoint on the newspaper industry. After all, it's not very heartening reading his "newspaper obituaries" that list various newspapers that are publishing their last issue, laying off employees, etc. But, after reading a few of his recent posts, I realized that Gillin isn't being entirely pessimistic – he's just being very realistic about the future of this specific medium of journalism.
This website was an eye-opener for me, to say the least. Although I knew that print journalism was struggling, I never realized it was this bad – or at least, as bad as Gillin reports.
It is nice to know that the newspaper industry is "fighting back", however. In one of Gillin's posts, he writes about the "Newspaper Project", a campaign meant to emphasize how big of a role newspapers play in people's everyday lives. While it's a good sign to know that that newspapers are taking the "offense", as Gillin puts it, I find it sad that they even have to do this in the first place.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
grmr: CWOT?
The first chapter of When Words Collide, "grmr: CWOT?" made me LOL – I mean, it made me laugh out loud. I understood the points that the authors, Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald, were trying to get across about proper punctuation and grammar – that it's fallen by the wayside in an attempt to communicate more quickly and efficiently – because I am very guilty of this problem.
The following paragraph in that first chapter stuck out the most:
"The problem is not realizing that there are different rules for different kinds of communication. The problem is that when you practice – every day, many times a day – a certain way of writing, you can get so comfortable with it that you forget how specialized it is. You forget it was created for a narrow purpose, insta-talk, and not for the wider, more important, long-term purpose of communicating thoughts, ideas, issues, information and opinions…"
My text messages are a prime example of this "informal" writing style that Kessler and McDonald refer to.
I recently sent a text to one of my friends that read: "Around 3 I will be. Did u need help w. something?"
Obviously, a few key words and proper punctuation are missing from that message. I'm sure if someone else read that text, he/she would have wondered exactly what I would be around three. Busy? Tired? Sitting in my J420 news-editing class? I meant to say that I would be "free", but purposely left that word out because hey, my friend knew what I was talking about.
The little grammar-Nazi in me knows that I should have written: "I'll be free around three. Did you need help with something?" instead of typing what I did and shortening "you" to "u" and "with" to "w.". But, I didn't because it was faster for me to get my message across in that way. However, reading that first chapter of WWC made me wonder if that reasoning was enough justification to write in such shorthand. If I can communicate quickly with others but fail to get my message across, then what's the point?
What if my friend didn't understand what I meant by "Around 3 I will be"? If he had to re-read my text message just to figure out what I was talking about, then it defeats the purpose of that quick form of communication.
I suppose it's better for all if "formal" writing is used in all situations, from text messaging to research papers. It will be a sure thing that our message is conveyed, at the very least.
The following paragraph in that first chapter stuck out the most:
"The problem is not realizing that there are different rules for different kinds of communication. The problem is that when you practice – every day, many times a day – a certain way of writing, you can get so comfortable with it that you forget how specialized it is. You forget it was created for a narrow purpose, insta-talk, and not for the wider, more important, long-term purpose of communicating thoughts, ideas, issues, information and opinions…"
My text messages are a prime example of this "informal" writing style that Kessler and McDonald refer to.
I recently sent a text to one of my friends that read: "Around 3 I will be. Did u need help w. something?"
Obviously, a few key words and proper punctuation are missing from that message. I'm sure if someone else read that text, he/she would have wondered exactly what I would be around three. Busy? Tired? Sitting in my J420 news-editing class? I meant to say that I would be "free", but purposely left that word out because hey, my friend knew what I was talking about.
The little grammar-Nazi in me knows that I should have written: "I'll be free around three. Did you need help with something?" instead of typing what I did and shortening "you" to "u" and "with" to "w.". But, I didn't because it was faster for me to get my message across in that way. However, reading that first chapter of WWC made me wonder if that reasoning was enough justification to write in such shorthand. If I can communicate quickly with others but fail to get my message across, then what's the point?
What if my friend didn't understand what I meant by "Around 3 I will be"? If he had to re-read my text message just to figure out what I was talking about, then it defeats the purpose of that quick form of communication.
I suppose it's better for all if "formal" writing is used in all situations, from text messaging to research papers. It will be a sure thing that our message is conveyed, at the very least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
