- The Supreme Court decided that corporations are very important citizens
- Air America announced it was going away
Friday, January 22, 2010
Yesterday was a Bad Day
This is why I can barely read newspapers
I've had a hard time reading for most of my life -- my recall isn't great, I read kind of slowly, and most of the time I have to read stuff over and over to really understand it. Mostly I just accept the fact that I'm only going to remember a little bit of what I read. I can't tell you most of the plot of a book I've just finished, and I almost certainly can't tell you how it ended.
But I have an even harder time with newspapers. The standard journalistic voice is really confusing and infuriating to me. Here's an example of something that's basically impossible for me to just read:
(The third paragraph of http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2466002)
Can you really read this sentence just once, at a normal speed, and understand it? Blows my mind. Now, it may be an extreme example, but I find all newspaper writing like this to one degree or another. Even the puff pieces are like this for me. The only stuff that I can really follow are the pieces in the Book Review, because they are deliberately not trying to spray facts at you -- they're discursive, and get to the hard facts somewhere in the middle. In other words, they're not journalistic.
Here's how I would rewrite this:
I always assumed that a major reason for the journalistic style is that it's more succinct. My rewrite however, saves one character.
I do see one real problem: "the nationalistic argument" at the end is too far enough from its referent in the previous paragraph. I would therefore want to move the previous paragraph after this one. But that breaks what seems to be another rule of journalistic writing: start with the barest facts, and add detail as you go along. By this rule, the nationalistic argument should be before the context of the nationalistic argument. So I can't fix this, um, stretched reference without making my version a few words longer.
In any case, my version sounds weird, right? It breaks the text up into smaller sentences, which makes it kind of sing-song. It might even feel condescending, in a Dick-and-Jane kind of way. But in the end, it's just another specialized, stylized voice for conveying information rapidly, and one I would find much easier to read.
But I have an even harder time with newspapers. The standard journalistic voice is really confusing and infuriating to me. Here's an example of something that's basically impossible for me to just read:
(The third paragraph of http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2466002)
The newspaper was expounding the nationalistic argument now being used in China to counter Google's announcement last week that it would stop censoring its Chinese search engine and may even pull out of the world's fastest-growing Internet market because of sophisticated cyber attacks, originating in China, that resulted in the theft of intellectual property and targeted the g-mail accounts of human rights activists and some businesses.I mean, come on. If you wrote a sentence like this in middle school, your teacher would tell you that you are really smart, and that you should rewrite the sentence.
Can you really read this sentence just once, at a normal speed, and understand it? Blows my mind. Now, it may be an extreme example, but I find all newspaper writing like this to one degree or another. Even the puff pieces are like this for me. The only stuff that I can really follow are the pieces in the Book Review, because they are deliberately not trying to spray facts at you -- they're discursive, and get to the hard facts somewhere in the middle. In other words, they're not journalistic.
Here's how I would rewrite this:
Sophisticated cyber attacks resulted in the theft of intellectual property, and targeted the g-mail accounts of human rights activists and some businesses. The attacks originated in China, causing Google to announce last week that it would stop censoring its Chinese search engine, and may even pull out of the world's fastest-growing Internet market. The Global Times expounded the nationalistic argument to counter Google's announcement.I know this is utterly unacceptable for journalistic writing, but it is much easier for me to understand. Am I the only one?
I always assumed that a major reason for the journalistic style is that it's more succinct. My rewrite however, saves one character.
I do see one real problem: "the nationalistic argument" at the end is too far enough from its referent in the previous paragraph. I would therefore want to move the previous paragraph after this one. But that breaks what seems to be another rule of journalistic writing: start with the barest facts, and add detail as you go along. By this rule, the nationalistic argument should be before the context of the nationalistic argument. So I can't fix this, um, stretched reference without making my version a few words longer.
In any case, my version sounds weird, right? It breaks the text up into smaller sentences, which makes it kind of sing-song. It might even feel condescending, in a Dick-and-Jane kind of way. But in the end, it's just another specialized, stylized voice for conveying information rapidly, and one I would find much easier to read.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Overheard on the Subway
So I'm on the F train trying to concentrate on my Nethack, when I hear two Park Slopey types get on the train already involved in a smarty-pants conversation. The train was noisy, so I wasn't able to catch everything. But I didn't need to.
Cast of Characters:
HE: Mid-forties, hair prematurely grey (but only slightly prematurely), horn-rimmed glasses.
SHE: Mid-thirties, maybe in marketing?
HE
They didn't understand even the most basic things, I mean, you would tell them something, something so obvious --
SHE
heh
HE
-- and they just didn't get it. Anyway.
[At this point I stop listening, and return to my game, which I promptly lose.]
...
HE
... semiotics ...
SHE
... semiotics ...
[Okay, now I'm listening. This should be good.]
HE
... want to promote Semiotics as a ...
SHE
Yeah, Augustus, Aurelius.
HE
... right ...
...
SHE
... Semiotics ... marketing ... Semiotics ...
HE
... marketing ... branded ... Semiotics ...
[Oh my god.]
...
HE
... has a degree, an MA in philosophy from the New School; her boyfriend is really talented, he's in this band, they're getting big, they have songs in Michael Cera films
SHE
... Cera? ...
HE
... baby-faced actor ...
...
SHE
... and I was hoping she would, you know, because I don't want to be alone, I would rather have someone to handle sales ... a company to be in ...
...
HE
... Semiotics ...
SHE
... really marketing ...
HE
... I prefer to call it, promote it as Semiotics ...
SHE
... Semiotics ... I mean, [sotto voce] it's not the *real* semiotics, it's a corrupted form of it.
HE
Of course.
...
HE
... I don't know what kind of assistants I would have ...
SHE
... someone to just ...
HE
... yeah, one thing I want to do, I don't want to manage any of this stuff , I just want to do the Work ...
...
SHE
... vice president of research and development at Google ...
SHE
... friend ... someone who's been at Google from the beginning ...
...
SHE
... they're into a lot of stuff, so If there's anything, I'm trying to think of something I would pitch to them ...
SHE
... real world, I mean it would be out there, in the real world ...
SHE
... totally funded ...
HE
... they can't make any decisions ... have to go to the CEO ... can't do it ... visions ... totally disempowered ...
HE
... Canal Street ...
...
SHE
I cant do it alone... I'm trying to think of a way can do it with, um, *you* ... guys.
HE
... she knows about identity politics ...
SHE
... going forward ...
[They head towards the door of the subway car.]
SHE
... first of all ...
[They get off at Canal Street.]
Cast of Characters:
HE: Mid-forties, hair prematurely grey (but only slightly prematurely), horn-rimmed glasses.
SHE: Mid-thirties, maybe in marketing?
They didn't understand even the most basic things, I mean, you would tell them something, something so obvious --
heh
-- and they just didn't get it. Anyway.
[At this point I stop listening, and return to my game, which I promptly lose.]
...
... semiotics ...
... semiotics ...
[Okay, now I'm listening. This should be good.]
... want to promote Semiotics as a ...
Yeah, Augustus, Aurelius.
... right ...
...
... Semiotics ... marketing ... Semiotics ...
... marketing ... branded ... Semiotics ...
[Oh my god.]
...
... has a degree, an MA in philosophy from the New School; her boyfriend is really talented, he's in this band, they're getting big, they have songs in Michael Cera films
... Cera? ...
... baby-faced actor ...
...
... and I was hoping she would, you know, because I don't want to be alone, I would rather have someone to handle sales ... a company to be in ...
...
... Semiotics ...
... really marketing ...
... I prefer to call it, promote it as Semiotics ...
... Semiotics ... I mean, [sotto voce] it's not the *real* semiotics, it's a corrupted form of it.
Of course.
...
... I don't know what kind of assistants I would have ...
... someone to just ...
... yeah, one thing I want to do, I don't want to manage any of this stuff , I just want to do the Work ...
...
... vice president of research and development at Google ...
... friend ... someone who's been at Google from the beginning ...
...
... they're into a lot of stuff, so If there's anything, I'm trying to think of something I would pitch to them ...
... real world, I mean it would be out there, in the real world ...
... totally funded ...
... they can't make any decisions ... have to go to the CEO ... can't do it ... visions ... totally disempowered ...
... Canal Street ...
...
I cant do it alone... I'm trying to think of a way can do it with, um, *you* ... guys.
... she knows about identity politics ...
... going forward ...
[They head towards the door of the subway car.]
... first of all ...
[They get off at Canal Street.]
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Come back, email address!
From: "DR. GABRIEL SAMAD"
YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS WON THE LOTTERY AWARD 2010.
Bye-bye email address, and thanks for collecting my email for me for 15 years...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)