There is an idea/concept that I have wanted to explore in detail. I believe I have mentioned it in a previous context, that the idea of internet lingo taking over, and being woven into colloquial speech, is a problem in our society. Currently, the topic is being discussed by hundreds of language experts worldwide. In an essay titled "'Whatever': Is the Internet Destroying Language," written by American University professors, they ask "Is electronically-mediated communication a linguistic free-for-all, or are there shared rules that users either follow or violate?"
This brings up a good point. I think the easy answer is that it depends...but depends on what? In the case of an online journalism blog for, lets say, an online journalism class, appropriate, linguistically-correct diction should be mandatory. On the other hand, all electronically-mediated communication has the potential to mash up the language. It is each and every one of our duties to preserve the words and the way we use these words to make meaningful sentences.
If there is one distinction to make between citizen journalists and those calling themselves citizen journalists, it is that the followers of all linguistic rules are the true journalists. Everyone else who has the nerve to call themselves a journalist or even commentator and then mess up the language should be ashamed.
So my main point, I think, is that the preservation of language is vital to the transforming world of electronic media. If "Murphy's Law" is always true, then in 5-10 years CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. will be indistinguishable from tabloid magazines such as Star and the National Enquirer. I don't think anyone wants that (at least not anyone interested in material such as this).
No comments:
Post a Comment