Political Correctness: Drawing the Line

Political Correctness: Drawing the Line - 1st draft, August 2010.
Author's note: This was also posted in YWS News, please go there to discuss content. This post is solely for writing quality, content and interest reviews, i.e. how well it's written, suggestions, grammar, improvements, etc.

Whether anyone in modern media who crosses the line will survive the antics of the public all depends on the general regard of political correctness.
However, more often than not, the turning point of someone’s career is decided by the press, which is only then followed by public reaction and complaint. Therefore, the power that a journalist holds is more important than influence; in fact a journalist has the power to create controversy, even through a claim, and thus destroy someone’s career – or in the rarity, make it.
Therefore the decision of what political correctness is lies in the opinion of the major press’ journalists and their inevitable influence on the people. Sure, some say that newspapers are a dying media art, but they’re not. With influence of press, comes attention from television and other widely regarded Medias, such as radio or even conversation. The involvement of a media such as television results in a spark of controversy; and controversy is the thing that provokes scandal. Does this mean that the “line” of political correctness lies merely with the opinion of a journalist or critic?
Perhaps so, some may even regard them as ‘the voice of the people’ and take their word by gospel. Regardless of whether or not the influence hits hard or who decides where the line falls, political correctness is one of the most discussed topics of the modern entertainment media, especially radio & television. The hardest hit tend to be the ego enforced television presenters or comedians drunk on their confidence.
Sure we, as the viewers, have grown to love these eccentric types, but somewhere, someone has to draw the line. As much as we may rise up in result and blame journalism for toppling someone’s career who we have all grown to adore, the human feeling of morality always comes out on top. As soon as we step back from our love for the presenter or comedian or whoever it may be and we look at what they’ve said/done from an unbiased, open-minded view, we can see why that journalist toppled their career. We are enlightened with reason.
Sometimes there are cases when we think of what the person crossing the line has said or done as a simple mistake, which many regard the result of as ‘political correctness gone mad’, but where do we stop and say, ‘okay, sure, it was only a mistake and okay, you only gone and done it once, but look this was a damn big mistake and you’re going to be paying hell for it now’? Someone has to. Someone has to make that decision.

Those people are Press Journalists, and their voice is the people.

Howdy!
Ok, from a strictly flow-oriented view, (like you asked in your before-writing comment) I thought it was stiff. The language you used was extremely hard-to-follow. Don't get me wrong, I like when writers use big words in their pieces, but they need to be spaced appropriately throughout the whole, so that those who don't know the words can guess based on the context. Also, alternate between big and little sentences. When there are only big sentences, with few natural hesitations, (commas, periods, semicolons, and the like) the mind and the eye have trouble keeping up. Overall, write how you speak. Based on your writing, I would say that as a general rule you are a person who uses obscure words in there every day life, but no one talks how you wrote in this piece.
Hope this helped!

Hi Ben!

Now, I’m not too great at non-fiction (In actual fact it’s been driving me mad the last week) but I think you need more reviews on your works! I think my brief uni career is basis enough to give you a fair and honest assessment.

Firstly, I have a question as to your audience, where you intend this to go. Is it an article simply for the YWS? Are you planning to consider this a publishing piece – if so, where would you consider and what are their parameters? These questions sound pedantic but they’re very much essential to how one can approach and react to your piece.

The piece itself:
You have a very interesting topic, one which I have always been interested in as someone who rarely reads the news. You present your points in a linear, organised manner which plays well to the structure of your article. However, your flow is fairly horrible; your punctuation has too many commas and not enough periods and we end up stilted and vaguely confused, although your points are so clear and determined that this should not be happening. Most notable is that when we stop it is in awkward positions that don’t lend to a strong piece.

The information you give us has no factual evidence, you don’t quote you don’t lend examples at all. You don’t even make some specifics: the difference between local media condemning the Labor government (in Australia) against the news attempting neutrality, to make a basic non PC related case. What kind of political correctness are we talking about? Does media hardline on racism or sexism as opposed to being pc about homosexuality or disabilities? Is there a difference between new media and old media? A difference between journalist and news anchor? Are we more forgiving or less to those who are in our public eye? It may be that the length of your article doesn’t lend aid to answering all of these small questions, but I would have liked to see a tighter argument on your behalf and more facts in the text.

On your tone: A somewhat casual, impersonal tone doesn’t fit with what you’re talking about, at least it doesn’t match the manner in which you’re presenting it. The pauses and blocks you have in your conversation with the reader don’t give a conversational tone. You’re mixing the professional strength with the casual charisma. I think you should pick one or the other and then tailor to that, to your audience. If you’re looking at an older audience, don’t simplify this at all, in fact I would suggest that you refine this and push a more complicated angle. If this is for a YWS audience, also don’t simplify it. You don’t use very complicated language (there are no really large words or obscure words here) and you’re fairly straight with your intent. I would suggest in both cases that you need to clear up your sentences a bit, make them somewhat clearer and less convoluted. We’re often trailing by the end of your sentence, or your point, and I’d like to see something snappier in many ways, so that it keeps us reading.

I like the essay, though mainly because I appreciate the topic. I think it needs some work and I look forward to any changes you decide to make. Please contact me if you do change it, I’d love another look.

*Hearts* Le Penguin.

Hi BenFranks! I hope this review doesn't come out sounding too condescending. It's really not supposed to be. Because, you know, you're the non-fiction guru and I'm nothing close to that.

BenFranks wrote:With influence of press, comes attention from television and other widely regarded Medias, such as radio or even conversation.

You don't need the first comma in this sentence, because with your comma, you are linking two dependent clauses. Two dependent clauses can't "depend" on each other. See, "come attention from television and other widely regarded Medias ..." is not a complete sentence (independent clause) in and of itself, and neither is, "With influence of press ..." so the two can't stand alone together.

BenFranks wrote:Sure we, as the viewers, have grown to love these eccentric types, but somewhere, someone has to draw the line.

I thik the "sure" here is a little bit too informal. Perhaps, "surely" would work better.

Overall, this is a very persuasive article, but I think it's lacking one thing. It's lacking that spark that most interesting non-fiction articles have. It's lacking some sort of real-life example. Yeah, you're talking about political correctness in the media. But, as you said yourself, political correctness is different to everyone. Perhaps you could throw in some crass quote from Dr. Laura or some other radio personality. Maybe you could even quote the president on something having to with political correctness. This would show me that you're not the only one who cares about the topic of this article.

I hope this helps, and this was a very nice, persuasive article!

Thanks for your reviews guys, they're always helpful. I shall be focusing your points on the next column I write shortly. I'm always learning after all! (: