Summing it all up

To begin: I have to say that I wasn't crazy about The Politics of the English Language. Personally I've never been a fan of George Orwell's writing. I find it to be like running through mud on a hot sticky day...I hope that isn't a "dead metaphor" I just used...

Of course I see the merit in reading the passage, I understand there are links to what he is saying and what we have been discussing in class. But snore. Yuck. Blah.

I have to apologize, this blog is coming at the end of a very long and horrible weekend of flying arrangements that left me stranded for countless hours in the Binghamton Airport that slightly resembles the set of "Wings". You get the picture.

I also found the assumption he was making regarding economic and politcal speeches being the cause of a dying language confusing. Yes, reading scientific mumbojumbo is also like running through mud, but do that many people read it and use it so that it is effecting societal tendencies...? And I loved the over pretentious line about a writers lack of precision, "a mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence." That's uplifting and makes me want to write more.

The only rule I really liked and wrote down to further inspire myself throughout this trying semester was "if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." I thought that was useful and pertained to something I could constuctively use.

In the Five Characteristics of Academic or Scholarly Prose I liked the brief way of explaining the complexities of science rhetoric without wallowing in the complexities. I thought the idea of remembering that scientific prose emphasizes the noun rather than the verb was helpful in remembering how to avoid such writing.

I also thought the examples adequately showed how to put the advice into practice. My favorite was this one: a direct lean usage -- rat, the academic usuage -- small founal species. Nice.

Moving along... the Assessment of Media Performance and Three Mile Island was a surprisingly interesting read. And in reading it I began to sympathize with the reporters who had no idea what they were writing about. Like Ben Livingood from the Allentown Call, I too wouldn't be able to tell you what a nuclear meltdown really meant. I guess that's why I found the original assignment of writing the story and bit crazy to be honest, and then to be graded on accuracy on that type of story was just a calcuated blow to me journalistically. I understand the point being made. But myself, like the other reporters who actually covered the event, would have like a accurate technical brief. We're sophomores and humans...not nuclear scientists.

Anyways I'm getting off track. I also appreciated the disscussion on sensationalism during the coverage. Right now in my ethics class we are focusing on how to avoid sensationalizing the story. I thought the point that was made about not asking the "what if" questions a helpful hint in staying away from tabloid material. Something I will bring up in my next class.

And finally, I liked the quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer about multiple sources. "There is a better chance of getting the truth from many tongues."


www.binghamtonairport.com
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rat