This article, written at the seventeenth grade level, is
laden with official style language. While much of the article includes long
lists discussing the names and accomplishments of women journalists, it also brings
in a methodical, scholarly perspective as it explores the influence of these
women in media publication history. For example, one argument that Beasley
expresses indicates women have not been given adequate recognition for their
writing. Beasley probably encounters at least some level of support for this
theory, considering that her article was published in a periodical called Journalism Studies. After some research,
I discovered that Journalism Studies
forms a branch of the Taylor & Francis Group, an international organization
that distributes academic journals as well as books. It appears to send out physical
copies of its journals, though the examples I found were online versions. The
entirety of the Taylor & Francis association puts off a very educational,
professional vibe, which is characteristic of academic journals. Thus, I concluded
that Journalism Studies has a limited
readership stemming from those interested in written communications.
Reading this article gave me a slight feeling of
inferiority, almost belittlement, which is ironic concerning its context.
Beasley uses lofty language to solidify her authority over the reader, employing
such examples as “pursued in various stages of conceptualization,” and “fit
into the compensatory and contribution categories” (Beasley 210, 211) almost in an effort to confuse her reader, or
perhaps weed out those who would not be able to comprehend the text. Granted,
Beasley has to be held to this standard as an academic writer. If she chose to
write in a simple manner, her work probably would not be published in Journalism Studies. The complex level of writing Beasley engages in is not explicitly
her choice, but rather one that society has established for academic writing. As
a female journalist myself, I found it irritating to have to sift through
Beasley’s flowery word choice and patronizing tone to simply get the “meat” out
of the article. Several of her ideas were repeated with altered sentence
structure or different words. Repetitive phrasing is characteristic of the
official style, but one would imagine that a journalist writing about
journalism would pick up on her own prose style more adeptly than someone who
has not chosen a career that requires extensive writing.
This sentence in particular stood
out as I read through Beasley’s article: “These three approaches cover family-oriented
studies that take in the personal as well as the professional, inquiry into
journalistic networking along gender lines, and narratives that emphasize the
emergence of women’s voices” (Beasley 208). The sentence following it reads:
“In short, they call for looking at women in journalism through a wider lens
than previously has been used” (Beasley 208). In the first sentence, several
official style examples can be noticed. Beasley prevalently employs euphemism
with such expressions as “journalistic networking” and “family-oriented
studies.” She draws out sentences with complicated phrasing and verbosity that
exasperates the reader. In fact, she even includes a second sentence to sum up
the point of the first sentence, which appears almost comical to the reader.
Beasley realizes that her manner of writing could confuse her audience, but
instead of modifying the initial sentence to make more sense, she adds a second
sentence to clear up her mucky vocabulary.
On the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scale, “Recent
Directions” scored a smooth 25, indicating its complexity. It surprised me to learn
that this article exercised an average of 29 words per sentence, as it seemed
to utilize more elaborate words frequently in its lengthy sentences. Passivity
cast a shadow over the whole of the article, directing verb style in an
official mode. Several times, I caught myself having to re-read entire
paragraphs, simply because they are written so stuffily. Below is another
example of the euphemistic language and overly complex sentence structure conveyed
throughout Beasley’s article, seeming to give an elevated edge to her manner of
speech.
“According
to Lerner (1979), the compensatory stage represented the identification of
women previously omitted from standard historical accounts. Moving beyond it,
Lerner described the contribution stage as the evaluation of women’s achievements
in a male-dominated world, the transition stage as the reworking of various
historical categorizations from women’s perspectives, and the synthesis stage
as the integration of the history of men and women’s experience” (Beasley, 210).
Long lists in sentences such as the
second one made it difficult for me to work my way through the article, though
Beasley has accurately created an official piece for her activity system. If
fellow journalists are going to be reading ”Recent Directions,” they will most
likely be accustomed to formal language and having to work through extended
sentence structure. Most of them will not experience the same exasperation I
did as I was reading through Beasley’s article, since they probably write like
her. The norm for her community is that writing must be official and
professional. A journalist’s motive is to inform, and Beasley does accomplish her
goal of doling out information to her audience. Maybe a more accurate motive
for Beasley, given her activity system, is to establish a sense of credibility.
Beasley knows that Journalism Studies
expects her to write academically, and without using jargon typical of the official style, she cannot accomplish this
task. She could have easily kept her sentences short and plain, but that would
not have served her readership in the way it must to maintain the academic
standard.
The plight of the female journalist
seems to be an interesting topic, one that I find personally appealing and
others may as well. However, Beasley’s ornate language and dramatically lengthy
sentences took away from her message: women in journalism deserve more
recognition. By choosing to take a superior stance over the reader and create a
confusing effect throughout the article, Beasley enshrouded her true purpose
for the piece and frustrated my efforts to understand her perspective fully. After
reading this article, I am not so sure that Eleanor Roosevelt would feel proud
to have paved the way for this type of journalism. Perhaps academic journalism
as a whole needs to change its tune and broaden its appeal so the common person
can understand the important issues discussed within the bindings of the
official style.
By D.M. Cook
No comments:
Post a Comment