Who is your audience?
Idealist writes a thought-provoking post today about the language blogs use compared to the language used by the traditional print media. Idealist argues that the print media tends to use simple language (they say 6th grade level) whereas many blogs trend towards college-level vocabulary. It's not uncommon to stumble across a post on Kos or Red State that makes sophisticated arguments and obscure cultural allusions... and while this may have the effect of excluding some readers, it also raises the standard of political debate (I'm reminded of the West Wing, when Toby encourages Bartlet to "be the smart kid" and "raise the quality of national debate").
I basically have two points to make here:
(1) When the media talks to us like we're children, it's refreshing that blogs talk to us like we're adults. Shouldn't we aspire to a level of discourse greater than that found at the 6th grade level? Is that an intellectually elitist thing to ask? I don't think it is. The Internet offers a wealth of information for anyone with a keyboard and access to Wikipedia or Google. When you're reading a newspaper and you don't know something, it might be frustrating; but when you're on a site or blog and run across something unfamiliar, it's incredibly easy to look it up and expand your world. That's a powerful thing and I'm reluctant to argue that new media should model its language after the traditional media.
(2) Considering the demographics of people who use the Internet (and to be clear, I don't have statistics handy), I'm fairly sure that the median level of education among Internet users is significantly higher than that of newspaper readers. If you narrow your universe to just blog-readers, I'm certain the level of education will be even higher. People who read and write blogs are, as IPDI puts it, "online influentials" who shape opinion in their real-life and cyber-communities. Why limit their experience by talking down to them?
6 Comments:
Just like in art it is in blogs. The question of who to speak to rears its ugly head.
In the past I've always leaned towards speaking toward the sophisticated with complexity, but that was in another life of mine.
Now, however, in the political realm I am becoming more inclined to lean toward the use of accessable, inclusive language and action. After all, not to be crass about it (But hey, I'm just some chump going to yet another expensive private institution of highter education),don't we need "them"?
Sorry about the anonymous comment above, that was me, being technologically incompetent, again.
So what do you make of the research that says people who read newspapers are better educated about the world? USA Today aside (which is written for a seventh-grade level, yes), I'm not convinced that vocabulary level has anything to do with the audience's ability to comprehend the news.
Don't confuse vocabulary with level of discourse--you're doing yourself, the general public and especially sixth-graders a huge disservice. That the most complicated thoughts can be expressed in the simplest of terms does not diminish the content of the message or the audience digesting it.
And not to burst your bubble, but level of education isn't necessarily the greatest indicator of intelligence, online or off.
Nice points GR!
My initial response to this message is that traditional forms of news (TV, newspapers, radio, etc.) have so much to cram in a block of time, they have to do so on a level that's easily understood by a larger group of people. I agree that the Internet is a wonderful resource tool and that it gives you the time and medium for in-depth writing and thought. With the news as heavy and negative as it is, I sometimes like the fluff of publications like USA Today to get me through it. I don't think it makes me dumb or less intelligent to indulge in a little guilty pleasure every now and then.
Politiae makes a good point that vocabulary should not be conflated with level of discourse... except that I think many will agree that the level of discourse in the mainstream media is pitiful. If you can even call it "discourse" to sensationalize and scandalize rather than carry on a genuine discussion and act like the "watchdog" agency the MSM is supposed to be.
I think it's possible to use simple vocabulary to explain complex ideas, but I don't think that's what is meant by "6th grade level". And quite frankly, I'm happy to do a disservice to sixth graders-- I certainly don't want a rag-tag bunch of 12 year olds running my country or describing the day's events. If speaking at the 6th grade level also implied a freshness and insight common to sixth graders, then I'd make an exception, but we're talking about individuals who are so used to dumbing down the political discourse that they don't even see that they're doing it. This is why I find blogs refreshing, since they are often written for specific audiences.
It's true, there isn't always a causal relationship between level of education and intelligence, but there's usually a correlation there.
Post a Comment
<< Home