Demanding Our Rights with Our Words

During WWII, Nazi physicians conducted experimental research on human subjects, exposing them to torturous injections of gasoline, viruses and poisons.  Thousands of concentration camp prisoners were mutilated and killed by ‘medical professionals.’  This repeated and deliberate violation of human rights resulted in the constitution of the Nuremburg Code in 1947, which provided ten directives for human experimentation.  The very first directive states, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”  Now, in every study where human subjects are involved as participants, the study may not begin until the researchers have obtained informed consent from the participants, showing their complete understanding of the nature and potential risks of the study.  Researchers believe that this understanding is primarily facilitated by the use of clear, plain language.  Investigating the language used in general consent forms, specifically those used for parental or legal guardian permission on the behalf of child participants and others with decreased autonomy, shows that plain style language is necessary in the preservation of fundamental human rights.   

            The United States’ Department of Health and Human Services requires that researchers obtain informed consent in a way that allows participants to  consider whether or not to participate in the study, to understand the potential risks involved in the study, and to acknowledge the right to withdraw at any time.  The HHS actually requires that “The informed consent process […] be delivered in language that is understandable to the subject. This may mean adjusting the reading levels of documents provided or translating documents and presentations into the language with which participants are most comfortable.”  Understanding the moral and ethical need to change the language to match the ability and reading level of the participants is one of the most successful ways the laws involving experimental research have used plain language to ensure the preservation of basic human rights. 

            The Office of Human Subjects Research at the Rochester Institute of Technology developed a set of tips for constructing consent forms.  One of their tips is to “refer to the subjects as ‘you.’”  This tip directly applies the plain language strategy of lower levels of formality by using the second person to directly address the reader.  Another tip informs researchers, “It is recommended that forms for adult subjects be written at a 6^th grade reading level or lower, which means […] sentences and paragraphs are short, terms and concepts are simple, and technical information is explained in non-technical ways.”  This quote suggests the use of plain language through advocating for minimal jargon, low reading level and high reading ease, and shorter, less complex sentences. 

These recommendations take into account the norms of average human abilities in order to establish norms for ethical treatment of human subjects.  Establishing these norms is essential in providing a wide net under which most participants will fall.  Unethical studies such as the research conducted at the concentration camps during WWII violate basic human rights by withholding information about the true intentions behind the research questions.  Certain styles of prose language such as “the official style,” which is characterized by longer, more complex sentences and imperatives, limit the understanding of texts to the groups of individuals that are familiar with that language.  However, this practice also withholds the same information from other groups that are not as familiar with the language being used.  The necessity of using plain language emerges in the effort to broaden the population to which legitimate and fully informed consent is accessible, ensuring the ethical treatment of human subjects.

            Using children in research studies requires extra protections as the Institutional Review Board (IRB) demands that children under the age of 18 must obtain permission from a parental guardian in addition to signing a general assent form.  These assent forms use extremely simple and direct sentences such as “A research study is a way to learn more about people,” and “You do not have to be in this study if you do not want to be.  If you decide to stop after we begin, that’s okay too.  Your parents know about the study too.”  Using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scoring technique, these passages received a 6th grade reading level, exactly.  The assent form requires the use of language available to children.  This is important because the IRB necessitates the ability of a child to deny assent to participate in the study even if their parents give the researchers signed permission, showing the IRB’s attention towards fundamental respect for the basic rights of every human, no matter the age or ability level.  Similar protocol is used in consent for prisoners, pregnant woman and other participants with diminished autonomy.  

            Plain language is used in consent and assent forms for experimental research due to the laws that have been constructed on moral and ethical ground for research.  Some may think that those with diminished autonomy may not be suitable to participate in such studies, however certain research questions are unanswerable with any other population of participants.  In addition to these subjects, research with any population of human subjects has the potential to benefit every human being on a broader scale depending on the nature of the research implications and generalizability of the results.  Because of these benefits, investigators still advocate the importance of using human subjects in research.  In order to assure the ethical and moral treatment of these participants, the use of the understandable language of the plain style is implemented and sited as the most important directive for conducting research involving basic human rights.  The use of language in the context of human research is an indispensable example of how influential our words can be on the lives of others and illustrates the level of attention we must pay to our language and its potential for broader societal consequences.     

 Alayna Stein 

Simple Style in Cover Letters

                Most people underestimate the importance of good writing. There are many situations where good writing can determine whether you succeed or fail. For example, a well written cover letter can get you a job or improve your chances of getting accepted into grad school, but a poorly written cover letter can land your resume in the garbage and you without a job. So how do you write a cover letter? Do you use simple style so your writing is clear and concise, or do you use official style so you sound more professional?  Although in most situations I believe simple style is better, I would argue that cover letters require official language. The cover letter should be written smoothly, flowing from one sentence to the next allowing the reader to enjoy as you explain why you deserve the position your applying for. The cover letter should still be clear and concise but it should have more passion and emotion, more than I think simple style is capable of.

                Let’s first look at the sphere of activities involved. I think cover letters are a professional/ formal sphere which involves two main perspectives, the writer of the letter and the reader. The writers’ goal is to inform the reader why he/she deserves the job in a concise style that gets the readers’ attention. While the reader is a hiring manager who sees applications all the time, so as a writer the most important thing to do is stand out.  The last thing a hiring manager wants to read is a long or boring cover letter.  

As you will see from the attached resume, I’ve built my career in a variety of roles and industries, mostly in small companies where I was not just the admin but also gatekeeper, technology whiz, bookkeeper and marketing guru. I’m not only used to wearing many hats, I sincerely enjoy it; I thrive in an environment where no two work days are exactly the same.

This is an example of official style in a cover letter. You can see that this is a very long sentence that incorporates multiple combination devices such as a relative clause, a subordinator, and a few prepositional phrases. These devices help the cover letter flow, making it easier for the hiring manager to read. But most importantly, the words this applicant chose displays emotion that the reader can feel when he/she reads it. I believe that is the biggest limitation of simple style it doesn’t take advantage of the copious amount of words. In my experience the simple words usually lack emotion which I believe to be necessary in a cover letter. Examples of good word choice from the sample above includes “sincerely enjoy”, “built my career in a variety of roles”, “technology whiz”, and “marketing guru”. All these words are unique ways to say something simple, yet they make you sound more passionate about what you do. The nature of my degree course has prepared me for this position.

It involved a great deal of independent research, requiring initiative, self-motivation and a wide range of skills. For one course, [insert course], an understanding of the [insert sector] industry was essential.  I found this subject very stimulating.

This is an example of a simple style cover letter. As you can see the sentences are short with no combining devices and the main points are clear. Although the author of this webpage believes this is a good sample, to me this it lacks energy, passion, and personality. This is a very generic “who kicked who” cover letter. 

                The purpose of a cover letter is to separate yourself from the rest of the applicants. How can you create a unique and creative cover letter that shows the reader you deserve the position when you write in simple style? When I talk about simple style I’m not referring to clarity and conciseness because all cover letters whether in official or simple style should be clear and concise.  What I am referring to is the emotion and passion official style can add to the cover letter. Simple style I feel lacks the power to distinguish your-self from others. These are the categories I made for official and simple style: simple style is what I want to read in a textbook so I can find the main points in a very short time, and official style I want in my novels that I read for enjoyment so I can relate and feel something for the characters.  Many might argue that the reader of your cover letter wants the main points with little work.  I believe that argument is 100% credible, but writing an extra 50 words in order to develop your-self and your skills better in your cover letter might give your paper the extra attention it deserves.

                Although in most situations I believe simple style is the most effective writing form, for cover letters I believe official style, if used right, could have the longest lasting and most positive effect on the reader.  Official style allows you to develop and talk about yourself in a creative and passionate way that will let the reader know you are highly qualified for the job and very passionate about the specific field. Simple style allows you to get your main points across quickly and efficiently but it doesn’t allow the reader to form a bond with the applicant. Unfortunately a cover letter written in simple style may just be a waste of time.  

Sam Schneider

Why Experts Now Think You Should Avoid Plain Language Use in Medical Articles

Plain Language is crucial to our society when it comes to conveying information in a quick, simple, and effective manner. However, it is also a tool used by journalists to attract reader’s attention by coming up with catchy and surprising titles. By creating these titles editors and journalists alike improve the chances of people clicking on the link to their article and, in turn, increasing the amount of page views which results in higher profits from advertisers. At its core there is hardly anything wrong with wanting to attract readers to your company’s website, but where this practice becomes harmful is when the information conveyed to the readers is either false or could easily be misinterpreted. This is often the case in articles written about medical studies that have been conducted by reputable organizations such as universities, national health organizations, or medical research facilities. The main problem is that the media and health organizations are two very different things that approach new discoveries in very different ways. The media wants to publish the most surprising findings in the fastest possible manner in order to gain revenue and viewership. The medical organizations will take an eternity to report to the public its conclusions about the studies they have conducted. The reason being is that medical information is very hard to define as being one thing or another. There are an infinite amount of factors to consider and it is for this reason why countless tests and trials have to be run. Their job isn’t to keep people interested, it’s to provide them with reliable medicine and advice so people can improve their quality of living.

Men’s Journal recently posted an article with the title, “Why Experts Now Think You Should Eat More Fat.” The language used in the article was around the 11^th grade as far as reading levels go but the title itself is where Plain language usage can lead to problems. The title is not only oversimplified, it is dangerously oversimplified. And that’s a problem when dealing with medical information, especially when it’s relatively new to the scene. To suggest that all “Experts,” have come to some sort of consensus on an issue which would essentially reverse the way we’ve looked at food over the years is nonsense. The only reason the title was written in such a way is because it was written for Men’s Journal, which may be a somewhat popular media outlet but it is hardly appropriate to get ones medical advice from such a place. I do not doubt the credibility of either the author or the results of the study, but to be so blunt and reckless with such influential information is far from what the medical community deems to be acceptable. Every doctor will tell their patients that when it comes to diets, “one size never fits all.” Not only that, but even if this information was credible and that it could be applied to all people, then many more tests must first be conducted before you start changing people’s diets. The medical community has never been a big fan of jumping the gun when it comes to releasing medical advice to the public. Also, medical information tends to be very complex and that is especially true for dieting. It is one of the most volatile situations in medicine and every year someone acts like they’ve found the magical solution and someday that very well may happen, but that information should not be annotated; every bit of information is crucial when it comes to matters of health. And while I agree that comprehension is important it is even more important that every detail be included in the report.

Aside from the title the language used in the body of the article was professional and knowledgeable. It provided examples of the studies conducted and clarified when it discussed complex medical concepts. However, at the end of the article there was an example of Aporia that makes my issue with the title of the article all the more relevant.

There also haven't been low-carb clinical trials running long enough to reach "hard end points" – heart attack, stroke, or death. That means no one can say with certainty that a high-fat diet will make you live longer. That might be why so few doctors recommend them. (Daniel Duane, Men’s Journal)

The title of the article is, “Why Experts Now Think You Should Eat More Fat,” not, “Why Some Experts Now Think That There Is No Strong Evidence To Suggest That A High-Fat Diet Would Be Detrimental To Your Health, But Similarly There Is No Strong Evidence To Suggest That It Would Improve Your Quality Of Health.” It isn’t nearly as hard for the medical community to show correlation as it is to prove causation which is easily what could be happening in this study, it’s too early to tell. Too often, journalists will look at correlation in medical studies and think that something has been proved when in reality we have proved nothing. We humans have a special ability to recognize patterns, and this can get us in trouble when we rush things like this. This is diet information; people can afford to wait so they can ensure that they get it right the first time around. The information being conveyed in this article is too sensitive to be using plain language.

-Mitchell Spoerl

Political Ads and Plain Style

Political attack ads are a prevalent and unfortunate aspect of our political system. They attempt to scale down and distort complex facts and ideas to make them understandable to the general public. In a need for quick understanding they use plain language in order to make their points short and easy to absorb. While they make large ideas understandable they also run the chance of distorting what the actual facts are, which is exactly what they are aiming for.

            While plain style writing has its merits in clarity it can also be vague and is allowed to omit specific details. Attack ads are allowed to make simple statements without having to back them up. Claims such as “Scott Walker’s reforms added 150,000 jobs in Wisconsin.” This is a bold statement that is clear and concise but fails to give any specific information. In opposition another ad might claim “Since Scott Walker took office Wisconsin has dropped down to 49^th in job growth.” While both of these statements are easy to understand, calculating in at a 4^th grade reading level, they also leave a lot questions as to the credibility of either statement.

            “Scott Walker’s reforms added 150,000 jobs in Wisconsin” clearly uses an active voice. It directly describes “Scott Walker’s reforms” adding jobs to Wisconsin. The use of active voice is a defining characteristic of the plain style and a prevalent feature in attack ad statements. The use of an active voice is more attention grabbing and usually easier to understand. In addition it adds emphasis to a person or their actions having a direct consequence. It makes it clear who they are accusing and what they have done. There is a level of certainty offered when using an active voice, it sounds confident and assertive making simple statements seem irrefutable. “Scott Walker’s reforms added 150,000 jobs in Wisconsin”, there is no argument here and it is clear what is happening. This is a concerning and abusive use of plain style.

            Plain style also limits the use of jargon. When appealing to the masses, or subliminally feeding them information, the use of jargon unfamiliar to the large majority of voters does not work well when making a point. The statements previously mentioned do not use any jargon or even approximate the use of it. In government and public policy there is a large amount of jargon, allowing the use of it to slip during ads provides another level of vagueness.

            During the 2012 presidential election there were a number of attack ads from both sides of the spectrum that utilized plain language in a skewed way. One ad from the Romney campaign claimed that president Obama’s healthcare law “creates an unaccountable new board that can cut Medicare benefits with no notice — and no one, not even Congress can stop it.” This statement is based in fact but uses plain and simplified language to skew its meaning. In reality, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board, by law, cannot cut benefits, and it is accountable to Congress, which can vote to reject the board’s recommendations”—factcheck.org. Another instance that attacks the same healthcare law stated that it “cuts Medicare by $716 billion.” This is completely true, however, when examined more closely the effect of the law would just slow the future growth of Medicare spending by $716 billion over the course of 10 years, and specifically through cutbacks in expenditures to medical providers.

            One could say that both of these statements are true, however without further context or explanation they shed a false light on actual facts. The statements are equally readable and relay information to the public in a fast and effective manor, but they abuse the purpose of plain style and trade in its strengths for a skewed purpose. Plain style can be a great thing in the world of writing when complex ideas can be explained fully in a style that is accessible to the majority of readers. The exploitation of this is effective in the manor to which its abusers intend and I fear that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

Plain Language Patterns in Technical Writing

Technical writing is a form of written communication that simplifies different types of information for readers. It can be found in several different fields such as computer hardware and software, engineering, chemistry, finance, or any other subject that requires simple, direct information to communicate a complicated topic. Its main purpose is to communicate in a way that is easy to understand for most people. According to Wikipedia.org, good technical writing is “concise, focused, easy to understand, and free of errors. Technical writers focus on making their documents as clear as possible, avoiding overly technical phrases and stylistic choices like passive voice and nominalizations.” It appears that technical writing uses many of the same elements as plain language.

Plain language generally has a higher reading ease and lower average reading levels. It uses active voice, quick sentence openings, and short, less complex sentences. It avoids euphemisms and jargon, and often has lower levels of formality. While analyzing different technical writing pieces including “how to” instructions, iPod help pieces, and manuals, I found that technical writing uses several of these elements along with other elements that contribute to the clarity of the piece including bold, italics, underlining, color change, additional pictures or videos, demonstrate, and uses the words “you” and “your.”

Using active voice and short, noncomplex sentences seem to make directions easier to understand and interpret for a wide audience within “how-to” manuals. One example I found was a step by step guide on “How to jumpstart your car.” Step number one reads: “Take out your jumper cables." “Take out your” is an example of active voice—it’s using action verbs at the beginning of the sentence and is directly addressing the audience. By doing this, the writer is making the task at hand as clear as possible. It doesn’t leave anything up to the interpretation of the reader, it is short and direct, and leaves no questions to be had. There is no simpler way to say “take out your jumper cables,” which makes it easy to understand and clear to all who read it.

Underneath this first step there is additional information that reads, “It’s a good idea to buy jumper cables and keep them in the trunk compartment.  If you don’t have jumper cables you have to find a good Samaritan who not only is willing to assist you, but who has jumper cables as well.” This additional information also uses aspects of plain language. It addresses the reader as “you” making it clear who should be doing what. It also is colloquial: it is informal and simple, again making the information clear and easy to understand. One thing that appears to be different in this section is that before the action verbs, the writer leads into the sentence or uses conditional statements (“if…”) before getting to the active verb. This is another pattern I found among technical writing texts. Additional information that is not vital to the step-by-step process, but may be helpful (for example, if you didn’t have jumper cables in your car), is less “plain” than the actual steps. It requires a bit more language, though simplifies the information so it’s still easy to understand. I believe this serves to cover all aspects someone might encounter if they have a dead battery. It is possible the person does not even have jumper cables in which case the document advises that they should always have some in the trunk, and also suggests a way to acquire them (a good Samaritan).

I found similar patterns in directions on “How to reset an ipod.” It gives both very direct, active instructions but also gives slightly less direct, conditional statements in colloquial language. For example, “Connect the device to your computer.” It has the active verb at the beginning of the sentence, addresses the reader in “you” form, and is short and simple. In another step it says, “If your device isn’t visible in the upper right corner of the screen, choose library.” While this sentence has a longer introduction before the active verb, that part of the sentence is vital to the next step and gives very specific direction (“upper right corner”). Without the introductory part of the sentence, it would make the statement less clear and confusing.

Another pattern I found within “how to” manuals is that they use prepositional phrases to simplify and clarify directions. For example, “shut of the ignition in both cars,” and “attach one of the red clips to the positive terminal of your battery.” Within the ipod manual context, some examples include, “If your ipod is connected to a computer…” and, “Press and hold the Sleep/Wake button and Volume Down button simultaneously for at least eight seconds.” All of these prepositional phrases are vital to understanding directions and increasing clarity within “how to” manuals. In the case of jumpstarting your car, the prepositional phrases are vital to the safety of the read as well.

After analyzing several examples of technical writing, I found many similarities to plain language. I also discovered patterns used within technical writing to create a clear, simple, and easy-to-understand directions. These include using active verbs in main steps and directly addressing the reader; using longer sentence introductions before active verbs in additional information; and using prepositional phrases to clarify vital information.

Plain Style Language in Conveying Educational Issues to the Public

Plain Style Language in Conveying Educational Issues to the Public

Cale Zuiker

            My argument in my first critique talked of the negative uses of the Official Style type of language that went along with the sphere of education.  Standards were written, journals and articles were posted that were written in this style and because of this were hard to understand to most without any background knowledge or experience with the jargon.  My questions in writing that critique were simply ‘who were these written for, for what purpose, and why?’ and I explored possible answers to those questions.  In this critique I want to explore examples of writing on the sphere of education in the Plain Style that accommodates readers with that average reading level at grade seven.  Although I still firmly believe that the Official Style is used unnecessarily too much in the sphere of education and that the majority of documents regarding education should be written in Plain Style, I still want to explore the possible negatives of writing plainly in this sphere.  I will try to look at the issue from two sides then talk about my own opinion and give my own argument regarding the topic.  The layout of this critique will fall in three parts; first I want to explore Plain Style in itself, the benefits of using it versus the Official Style as well as the negatives.  Then I want to look at some examples from the field of education, primarily news articles, written in the Plain Style and finally I will attempt to bring all my thoughts together in a conclusion.

            Plain language, when looking for a straight definition, is communication your audience can understand the first time they read or hear it.  There is no need for open interpretation here, it is what it is.  There are a couple of components to the Plain Style, and The King’s English by Henry Fowler state them;

Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched, prefer the concrete word to the abstract, prefer the single word to the circumlocution, prefer the short word to the long, and prefer the Saxon word to the Romance

Because this book was written in 1906 it uses a little language that is foreign to modern day so for the record the contrast between the Saxon word to the Romance word means that native words are better than borrowed ones.  So this is the basis of plain language; that it is unnecessary to use a far-fetched idea, or an abstract word when a familiar idea or a concrete word will do, will make the audience understand.  And in turn this reflects the purpose of language, which is to communicate, and by using the Official Style this communication is blocked at points by people who do not have the jargon experience or have not been educated to broaden their vocabulary or understanding of complex words or sentences.  However, this does not mean that those people should not be excluded from language in their community whether it be through the news, basic conversations, or any use of language for that matter.  It needs to be about getting the point across to everyone and eliminating this ‘elitist’ approach to higher educated ways of communicating that leave people out and create this inequality that is completely avoidable if we choose it to be.
            Now in reference to the sphere of education, most of the documents that I have chosen are written in news articles as not many scholarly journals are written in the Plain Style, because frankly, in my opinion most scholarly journals are written to show off.  As I said before the purpose of language is supposed to be to communicate, to get the word out as newspapers do, and to make this word accessible and readable by the entire literate population.  Here is a passage from an article written in the U.S. News entitled “Education Reform May Leave High-Performing Students Behind”,

Hall and Plucker agree that both achievement gaps are and should be points of concern for educators and policymakers, but they require different responses. One simple change educators and researchers could make to help improve achievement gaps at the top end of the spectrum is to increase awareness.

This comes in with a reading level of 14.7, which is still a little high in my opinion to be published in a news article but the rest of the article is full of quotations that are in plain language and easy statistics that are easy to follow.  When reading something people like to have something to look at such as a picture or a graph that eases the reading a little bit.  I think that in this case, providing a read for a common citizen is important because of the context that it is published in.  Some people, I have realized, enjoy being challenged when they read so they seek out pieces that meet that challenge; scholarly articles or complex reports filled with jargon for example.  They like to read things at a high reading level for whatever purpose; perhaps the message conveyed in the article makes sense to them, perhaps they like coming across a topic they don’t know much about so they research it, and some may do it just to seem smart.  In this case the Official Style is great for this type of reading but this portion of readers do not make up the majority.  We live in a society where we want things to be easy, we do not want to put much effort into it.  This is a negative aspect of our society but nonetheless it is true and while I agree that we need to improve upon this aspect, challenging readers by writing a news article is not the way to do it.  Another example of plain language in relation to the sphere of education comes again in a newspaper article this time from the L.A. times.  This article talks about the way that parents, not teachers, should be blamed for their child’s behavior at school.  As you can imagine just from the description this piece offers opinions of the author but also of people he interviews, teachers and administration, as well as parents.  This short passage from the article gives the reader a clear viewpoint of the author’s opinion;

There are indeed bad parents; some are selfish, absent, neglectful or cruel. But others are just overwhelmed or failed themselves at school. And compounding that is a cultural shift that has reshaped the relationship between parents and teachers.

Is this piece some long, dry article on education reform, filled with jargon that only a small percentage of the population can comprehend?  No, it is meant for someone, anyone that is interested in an issue that is going on in education and gives them an opportunity to read about a situation that happened at a school (the author starts the article by writing about an incident in a school regarding student behavior) and this author’s opinion as well as others involved in the sphere of education.  The article is easy to understand, with a readability grade level of 9.6, and the reader can compare the author’s viewpoints with his or her own.  There is no analysis that needs to occur, this is simply an informative piece on a subject in our society that some people may be interested in, and it is communicated clearly to an average reader.  Some critics of the Plain Style may try to argue with this, saying that this is too important of a topic to be talked about plainly; the education of our children needs to be something spoken about and decided on by experts in the field.  This may be true in some sense, obviously you want people who make decisions about this field to have experience in this field.  But education goes far beyond school, education is a lifelong process and just because someone may work a job that is low paying or live in a low socioeconomic environment, does not mean that they should be excluded from this type of information.

            In conclusion for this critique, I still hold strong the idea that the purpose of language is to communicate and the purpose of education is to educate people, not just students in school, but everybody who lives in our society.  Plain language offers an easier way to educate everyone, it makes it easier to communicate ideas or news in a specific field.  If people choose to read articles or documents in the Official Style that is there choice and they are entitled to it.  But we should not have this secret group of elitists that are the decision makers in the spheres, specifically education, because they are ‘intelligent’ enough to read this material in the Official Style and speak this secret language of jargon.

Twitter: #ThePlainestOfPlain

How does the public get their news? It used to require picking up the daily newspaper, turning on a morning radio show, or tuning into a television news broadcast. With the modernization of technology the easiest way to see what is happening in the world is checking social media websites such as Facebook or Twitter. This has become so popular that even traditional news sources have incorporated social media into their programing. Twitter uses the plainest form of writing that is becoming more and more popular with the younger generations. It is similar to texting language, in which the least amount of words is considered better. This is a great technique when updating the world about how your day went, but when reporting on things that can affect multiple people it might not be the best method. When some people use Twitter as their sole source of news they are likely to receive biased, overly simplified, or even false information due to the plain style of Twitter language. People are also more likely to misunderstand a Tweet then they are a full length article or explanation. So what causes these problems? Why can’t news be told in 140 characters or less?

           

Twitter is accessible to anyone with internet connection, and has been integrated into our national politics, business, and news. The art of sending a message or making a statement in 140 characters requires the writer to be “clear” in that bluntness is necessary in such a short time. This “clarity” can actually lead to trouble by leaving out crucial information. Anytime you have a short time to get your point across you will miss some important aspects that could have clarified things to your audience. This happens every day on Twitter, with endless lists of “twitter gaffes” exploiting the unintentional meanings taken from certain tweets (the Google definition of gaffe is “an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator”). An example of this would be ‘The Office” star Rainn Wilson tweeting: “If I were ever date raped I would want it to be to ‘Whole Lotta Love’ by Led Zepplin.” or after the 2011 tsunami in Japan Gilbert Gottfried tweeting: “Japan is really advanced. They don’t go to the beach. The beach comes to them.” Both of these tweets led to public uproar, with Rainn Wilson losing fans and Gilbert Gottfried getting fired. This may be an extreme example of when Tweets can go wrong, but if they had elaborated or better explained what they meant they might not have offended so many.

           

Twitter is “credible” in the sense that Twitter verifies accounts to “establish authenticity of identities of key individuals and brands on Twitter” (FAQ page). Verified identities include popular users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, etc. Besides account authenticity, Twitter is not the most credible source for information. Twitter is branded to share breaking news before traditional news venues even know about the story, like the January 2009 tweet about the plane landing in the Hudson River, or the following tweet that unknowingly live-tweeted the raid on Osama bin Ladin:

This was one of many tweets from Sohaib Athar that contained details unknown to the public about the bin Ladin raid. Due to Athar’s access to broadcast his thoughts live to the rest of the world he unintentionally reported details of the raid before the United States government could explain the situation. This didn’t affect the result of the raid, but it easily could have. We can recognize that this Tweet isn’t an official report due to the context and the plain language, but many people probably took this as one. How can we recognize this statement as plain language? Well instead of a detailed account of what he heard around him, Athar tweets in one single incomplete sentence that is clear and straight to the point. There are two ideas in the statement separated by the parentheses, which could have been said in one more complex sentence.  In spite of these two informal incomplete ideas Athar chooses to use punctuation that would suggest an effort to be more formal. The effort the punctuation suggests shows that Twitter might constrain people that would otherwise use correct grammar or a more formal tone, because who would want complete, grammatically correct sentences on their Twitter feed?

The Sohaib Athar tweet is just the beginning of Twitter being the venue for breaking news. The plain language shown in this tweet can exemplify the problems with reporting news through social media. Even with follow up tweets, almost all details about the event were left out. Because this was the only report people received at the time, misconception, uproar, and even the possibility of ruining military missions could have happened. Trying to keep up with the fast paced Twitter news ideal, traditional news sources like CNN and FOX have made mistakes on Twitter: “Supreme Court strikes down individual mandate portion of health care law. on.cnn.come/LvVRcK” (@cnnbrk) when actually the Supreme Court backed the new healthcare law, and it came into effect soon after. When people try to be the first ones to report on the news, which is essential for getting the most attention on Twitter, they are more likely to send out a message that might not be correct.

According to an American Press Institute study 7 in 10 adults under the age of 30 say they learn news through social media. No one expects official style when going through their twitter feed, but if this is the future of how people receive news should it really be this plain? Only getting 140 characters to announce something important can lead to misunderstandings, omission of information, offence, or biases. It can also be seen as too simple to get the message across clearly. Are we dumbing down our messages too much? NASA has been recognized with awards for its use of social networking to deliver updates on missions and results. A specific account, @MarsPhoenix updates its 286,000 followers on NASA’s Mars Phoenix Lander mission. One of the most popular tweets by @MarsPhoenix describes the discovery of ice on Mars:

This is such an important message put into such a plain style. This 98 character announcement has a readability score of 105.9, with a scale that usually caps is ease of readability at 100. A second grader can read and understand this text. There is obviously less complexity, no formality, and no difficulty in figuring out what is happening.

So what is going on inside the tweet that makes it so plain? The most obvious answer is its simplicity and readability. Unlike many official announcements of space discoveries, this tweet lacks jargon only accessible to the space experts. Instead, the tweet contains jargon of a different kind- the millennial jargon. In no other place but social media would it be acceptable to use excessive exclamation points, textualized verbal statements, zeros as the letter “o”, and incomplete sentences to announce such a huge discovery. Some common plain style strategies include metabasis, conduplicatio, exemplum, and distinctio. In the sphere of Twitter even these strategies are taken to a plain extreme. Metabasis and conduplicatio essentially refer to the repetition of words- whether stating what has been said or repeating a word near the beginning of the next clause. This tweet, which contains only twenty one words, repeats “ice” three times. They do this so the reader can spend even less time trying to decipher the message, just seeing the repetition would cause the reader to understand that the announcement is about ice without really needing the other words. Exemplum and distinctio are essentially providing examples or definitions of words or ideas to prevent ambiguity. This is seen in the tweet when they specify that the ice they found is in fact “*WATER ICE*”. Because this statement is dumbed down to the second grade level, they must assume people wouldn’t know what they mean by ice. Clarifying this eliminates any confusion of the matter. There is no need to think when trying to understand this tweet.

One might ask what the problem is with the plainness of this message. Shouldn’t news be easy to understand? It is important for news venues to be clear and direct, but where Twitter finds trouble is what people do with the length they are given for their messages. Some Tweets, like the Supreme Court example mentioned before, get around this by adding a link to a more detailed story. Being plain and understandable does not require emitting crucial details to the story. The @MarsPheonix example leaves a lot of room for a curious reader’s interpretation: What does the tweet mean? Why is it good that there is ice? Is this a sign of life on Mars? All of these questions are answered if you look at a more official report on the findings, like one found on the NASA website:

“Scientists relishing confirmation of water ice near the surface beside NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander anticipate even bigger discoveries from the robotic mission in the weeks ahead.”

The biggest difference between the tweet and the NASA report is a difference of fourteen grade levels! This excerpt from a much longer detailed article has a readability score of 22.8. The article also goes on to answer all of the questions the tweet could give someone and provides links for further information. This poses a question we have to ask ourselves: Would we rather glimpse at fast, easy, simplified news or challenge ourselves to more difficult, thorough, accurate news?

If you create a Twitter account and scroll through the trending tweets, you can begin to recognize the type of language common to this sphere. Besides the lack of proper grammar, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation, a deeper pattern emerges. Possibly complex ideas are shortened to short phrases and opinions are lessened to emoticons and onomatopoeias (“meh” is common, or from our above example “w00t”).  A good amount of what you can see are not original thoughts or ideas, but retweets, quotes, and responses from other users. You have to sift through these and search for the original tweet that started the string of responses. There you will find what we have discussed previously, the “breaking news” type of tweet. Most of these are clever or shocking statements about something happening around the world. Before you even see the original message, you receive millions of Twitter users’ opinions and reactions to the message. This would cause a viewer to begin to form their own opinion of the matter before they even see the original message. What does this do to our perception of news?

What happens when we base our source of news around Twitter? I believe the world will become filled with misinformed biasedness even more than what it is now. Twitter requires a meaning of the message to be discovered fast enough to be read while scrolling down a screen. This is the cause of the plain style, which is needed to create a fast, attention grabbing post. When a reporter has to pick through a story to post something with 140 characters they can choose 140 characters that fit their agenda or purpose. They end up intentionally distorting truths, omitting important information, and offending certain groups. Twitter makes it too easy to have unreliable sources, which isn’t a problem if Twitter is only used to supplement actual news stories, but unfortunately it is growing to be more than that. To date, Twitter has 135,000 new users signing up every day. With the younger generations relying more and more on technology, there might be a time when Twitter is the only source of information about what is going on in the World. Will Twitter and other social media sites take over as the public news sources? Will there even be a need for reporters or newspapers? Will this change in news dumb down our society? Instead of dumbing down our news and therefor our tweets just to grab attention, I suggest that when reporting on important things there needs to be as much information as possible in those 140 characters. If traditional news venues want to use Twitter they must use it accurately and efficiently. 140 characters can go a long way when you omit the plainest of plain styles.  

-Amber Middleton