While on Twitter (what a Surprise), I noticed two interesting articles.
One article was posted as a public opinion by an editor of the New York Times. I thought it was interesting and relevant for class, since it talked about how some readers did not like the usage of the words “illegal immigrant” in its newspaper.
The article reads, “[The word illegal immigrant] is clear and accurate; it gets its job done in two words that are easily understood.”
I thought that it was interesting to learn about the steps that modern newspapers presently take to come across as fair and neutral for everyone, and to use terms that do not offend readers.
The article closed with, “This is not a judgment on immigration policy or on the various positions surrounding immigration reform, or those who hold those positions. Nor is it meant to be uncaring about the people to whom the words apply. It’s simply a judgment about clarity and accuracy, which readers hold so dear.”
Another interesting story that I stumbled on while surfing Twitter was about the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law and how a judge ruled an injunction to the case.
The article conveyed that the law was designed to prevent election fraud among voters, but critics argued that Republicans were trying to sway younger people and elderly people from voting. I personally agree with the latter, but that is irrelevant.
With the ruling, voters can vote without an ID, as long as they’re registered. If I was a PA resident, I would be sighing relief.
No comments:
Post a Comment