What I don't like about newspapers is really, the content. As much as I doubt the authenticity of the journalistic content, the addition of what is currently 'reader's viewpoints', where they perhaps want to elicit some form of interaction with the viewers or to appear transparent, or to appear more liberal in their cause of freedom of speech, is really starting to bug me.
There are a few quite distinctive categories of people who write in, you have the overzealous types who want to write in as much as possible as self advertisement of their apparent intelligence and insight, you have the frustrated ones who don't really know where else to write so they decide to vent, and there are those who really have no basis for writing in but they decide to write anyway, because they can.
That's not so bad. What bugs me is the mind your English section. This is basically a section on what is supposedly a tool to improve your English, but it is really ending up as a damned witchhunt to identify and eliminate, and make fun of signboards and people with bad or incorrect grammar. You get people writing in, criticizing articles in the papers, or things they've heard, or words they see on signs. Let me ask you one thing, does that really improve your quality of English? Frankly speaking, I couldn't care less about grammar, I honestly don't know about verbs, adjectives and all that technicalities of the language. I just write what sounds right, you know what I mean? Simply because its natural. Nitpicking, however, isn't natural.
We are now living in a time where things are constantly changing; the weather, global warming, the internet, the way we communicate. What defines the method of delivery as right or wrong? For example the birth of Ebonics, scoffed at by purveyors of good English does not stop the rapid adoption and use of the variation of the language. Who is to say that the structure is grammatically incorrect if everybody adopts it as an effective method of communication?
When I was thinking of a title to call this blog, I wondered if using the word 'moron' was appropriate, so I looked up the definition on Wikipedia and I came up with a very amusing description. I quote, 'Moron was originally a scientific term, coined by psychologist Henry Goddard from a Greek word meaning "foolish" and used to describe a person with a genetically determined mental age between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was also once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70 and was a step up from "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and two steps up from "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).' Unquote.
I guess that's not too bad at all not to be at the bottom of the food chain.
