I'd like to discuss the lack of a young perspective in your
paper's recent article "Twtr? It's majorly bad! Leading headteacher
condemns 'text speak' for eroding schoolchildren's language skills" For an
article so focused on the youth of today, it needs to ensure that it can cover
all bases, so that it can actually better inform its audience. As a modern
teenager I disagree completely with the idea that text speech is ruining the
English language and I honestly believe that almost any one young person you would
have interviewed for your article would have agreed with me.
I believe that the
problem does not lie in text speech itself, rather in the fact that many
do not understand when and where it is appropriate to use different Englishes.
Text speech is not a new version of English made up entirely of grunts and
squeaks, it is simply a different dialect. That is how it should be seen, not
as the worst thing to ever happen to the English language.
How can you write an article about the youth without even
including them in it? It is unfair and gives our ‘opposition’ a great chance to
take as many hits as they’d like, knowing that we cannot hit back. It really is
simple journalism to acknowledge both sides of the debate, especially when
debating such a hot and interesting topic such as this.
Continuing with my point that the problem lies in the student’s
knowledge of the context of the situation and not of their knowledge of the
English language itself. While I cannot disprove that text speech has a
negative impact on spelling and grammar, I simply ask that you take a look at
the other side of the coin when writing your pieces. It is simply good
journalism, otherwise you may stray too far towards propaganda.
I think that Josh brought up some very good points in his response to the Editor as he not only told the editor that his/her points were not true due to the fact that language has always been evolving, but also decided to highlight the biased nature of the editor's writing. What is meant by this is that Josh brought up the point that someone cannot judge a community of people if they don't take someone from that side to further influence their point. The only critique I would give to Josh's response is purely grammatical as sometimes it was difficult to read with a good flow. Other than that, great points were brought up and there is no question needed to be asked.
ReplyDelete