I can't stand to watch the network news on TV. In fact, I hate it. I don't like the spin, the political correctness, the sensationalism or the puff pieces.
Just the facts, ma'am.
Tell me what is going on in the world around me. I don't care that your best friend's mother's brother-in-law was also in Uganda and says the environment is 'unbearable'. That's subjective. What is unbearable to some is normalcy for others. Just give it to me straight. Tell me they are a self-contained nation with little import and export. I'm smart enough to figure out that it means they live on limited resources with an increasing population and are growing more dependent on outside support. Understood. Next.
Because I have little patience for network news (though I do indulge in the BBC more often than I admit) I get most of my fix from the internet.
I love that I can read the same report from three different perspectives in impersonal default font and come to my own conclusions based on more information than if I had just tuned into my local news station. However, I've grown increasingly disillusioned as editors of reputable newspapers are replaced with mass-opinion blogs and low standards for the English language.
Too often, I see articles coming from the AP or Reuters that would have my Sophomore English teacher turning red (complete with the throbbing purple vein on the left side of her temple and extending to her forehead.) She discouraged me from a career in journalism because I had a tendency to write like I speak, and as such, I had no respect for technical and grammatical correctness. Plus, I really like run-ons and incomplete or incoherent sentences followed by ellipses...
It doesn't stop me, however, from being particularly picky about my news stories and how they're written. I don't typically go back and read my own writings with an editing eye (though I should) but I'm very good at nitpicking the heck out of something someone else has written. So, no journalism for me... but proofreading and copy-editing is an enjoyable consolation.
My pet peeves range from name switching to confusing pronoun usage to improper word choice and elementary spelling errors. My favorite snafu to catch is the one where the author started her sentence but then deciding to change their voice, tense, or structure halfway through them.
The byline that caught my eye today read: Elderly woman killed in red-light running crash in Phoenix
Now already, I don't like the phrase 'red-light running'. Since when is a red light hyphenated? But I digress... What stood out to me after reading was how many times the victim was referred to as 'elderly'. You see, she was 71... and perhaps I have a skewed sense of age, but that doesn't always strike me as 'elderly'.
I know that the definition refers to anyone old or beyond middle age, so the word choice is appropriate, I suppose. But I always think of elderly as more of a 'state of being' than a number. I've known 80-year-olds that can run circles around me and who are just as self-sufficient as they were 50 years ago. I know 50-year-olds that I wouldn't trust behind the wheel of a car to save my life. My grandparents are sharp as tacks and nowhere near what I'd consider 'elderly'. My elders, yes. Elderly, no.
And yes, I know it's subjective. But that's what I always find interesting about words and interpretation. And also why I think that even in this age of digital media, the written word is still so important to our human evolution. Well, language in general...
And even though I hate quotes, I'm going to end this blog with an excerpt from the script of Waking Life. (One of my absolute favorites.)
"I mean, [language] came from our desire to transcend our isolation...
and have some sort of connection with one another.
And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.
Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.
Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you!" We came up with a sound for that.
But when it gets really interesting, I think,
is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...
all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.
Like, what is, frustration? Or what is anger or love?
When I say "love,"
the sound comes out of my mouth...
and it hits the other person's ear,
travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,
you know, through their memories of love... or lack of love,
and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.
But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.
They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?
And so much of our experience is intangible.
So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.
And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,
and we-- we feel that we have connected,
and we think that we're understood,
I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.
And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment