NYT vs Orwell
According to Orwell, most of us are victims of the plague that is the decay of the English language. Even the high esteemed editorial writers at The New York Times can be just as at fault as us high school students.
The editorial board recently released an article criticizing Trump's attempts at writing and getting bills approved by legislation. Although the article was voicing a popular opinion amongst Californian teens like myself, this didn't disguise the "Orwell-mistakes" made by the author. For example, there were many instances of the use of jargon words. The editorial piece is a comment on Trump's actions, indicating the intended audience is the average American. Using Words and phrases like "... receded through malign neglect" are and "acceding to his bluster" only work to confuse the reader. The words aren't common, making it hard to stay focused on the original presented argument.
Additionally, the author used tired phrases like "in over his head" and "learning on the job". These go to show that the author wasn't taking control of the piece, rather letting someone else's past work do the job instead. If figurative language should be included, Orwell says it should be unique and not something you've heard since you were 5 years old.
The author also used a fair amount of ambiguity. In some cases it worked for the paper's argent, singling out specific points made previously by Trump. In one instance, the paper stated, "... giant infrastructure programs, which would indeed yield jobs". This statement is so open ended that there is essentially no meaning behind the words. What defines a giant program? What infrastructure programs? What kinds of jobs? There was also evidence shortly after this when the author responded with "... tax cuts to benefit mainly the wealth". On this response, we aren't able to gauge who is considered wealthy. What's the cut off number from upper middle class to wealthy? Ambiguity drains the meaning from words.
Overall, the editorial board of The New York Times, although voicing a popular opinion, fell victim to the screw ups of the decay of language. They were active contributors to the downwards spiral of the decay of the English language. Although at times successful, there was a good amount of evidence to support that English is indeed dying.
The editorial board recently released an article criticizing Trump's attempts at writing and getting bills approved by legislation. Although the article was voicing a popular opinion amongst Californian teens like myself, this didn't disguise the "Orwell-mistakes" made by the author. For example, there were many instances of the use of jargon words. The editorial piece is a comment on Trump's actions, indicating the intended audience is the average American. Using Words and phrases like "... receded through malign neglect" are and "acceding to his bluster" only work to confuse the reader. The words aren't common, making it hard to stay focused on the original presented argument.
Additionally, the author used tired phrases like "in over his head" and "learning on the job". These go to show that the author wasn't taking control of the piece, rather letting someone else's past work do the job instead. If figurative language should be included, Orwell says it should be unique and not something you've heard since you were 5 years old.
The author also used a fair amount of ambiguity. In some cases it worked for the paper's argent, singling out specific points made previously by Trump. In one instance, the paper stated, "... giant infrastructure programs, which would indeed yield jobs". This statement is so open ended that there is essentially no meaning behind the words. What defines a giant program? What infrastructure programs? What kinds of jobs? There was also evidence shortly after this when the author responded with "... tax cuts to benefit mainly the wealth". On this response, we aren't able to gauge who is considered wealthy. What's the cut off number from upper middle class to wealthy? Ambiguity drains the meaning from words.
Overall, the editorial board of The New York Times, although voicing a popular opinion, fell victim to the screw ups of the decay of language. They were active contributors to the downwards spiral of the decay of the English language. Although at times successful, there was a good amount of evidence to support that English is indeed dying.
Comments
Post a Comment