|
Posted on 08.25.10 by K. Daniel Glover @ 10:39 pm
Amy Hinds, a teacher in Missouri, the author of the blog Living Single in Small-Town America, and a talented photographer, fancies herself a teacher. But by my reading of her latest blog entry, “Really … I Don’t Hate Rednecks,” she has much to learn, too. It’s clear from the title and lighthearted tone of of Hinds’ essay that she’s not as hostile as most people who make a sport of mocking rednecks these days. But she has an elitist streak that is blinding her to who we rednecks really are. A stubborn embrace of the Confederate flag does not a redneck make. Neither are sexism nor a contempt for English class the exclusive domain of rednecks. Plenty of highly educated men are chauvinist pigs who can’t write or speak coherently, and whose idea of a good book is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Ironically, Hinds plans to use her own redneck past to better connect with her students:
It’s a smart move on her part. Hopefully she’ll learn as much about rednecks this year as they learn from her. It sounds like they all need a good education. Filed under: Grammar and Hatin' On Rednecks and People and Rednecks Comments: None |
|
Posted on 03.05.10 by K. Daniel Glover @ 7:57 pm
We think it’s important to teach our children good grammar during the elementary and secondary education years so they don’t look foolish while using bad grammar to protest during their college years. (Read previous “Why We Home-School” lessons.) Filed under: Grammar and News & Politics and Why We Home-School Comments: 1 Comment |
|
Posted on 02.26.10 by K. Daniel Glover @ 7:43 pm
So our public schools are stuffing kids full of sugar- and fat-laced snacks but apparently not teaching them capitalization, punctuation and other basic rules of grammar. Parents might as well send their kids to a candy store for classes — which may be their best chance for employment if they don’t start learning how to write. It’s enough to make an enlightened redneck journalist like me scream. (Read previous “Why We Home-School” lessons.) Filed under: Culture and Food and Grammar and News & Politics and Why We Home-School Comments: 1 Comment |
|
Posted on 11.05.09 by K. Daniel Glover @ 9:05 pm
That is especially true of blogs like this one. Most of us bloggers post our copy online without a second glance, in part because of our rush to be first with the news and in part because copy editing can be a tedious chore. The end result is copy that often is grammatically incorrect, stylistically weak and plagued by typos. We bloggers need good copy editors — or we need to be our own copy editors. Alas, the way of the blog appears to be the way of print media in the information age, too. From Editors Weblog:
That commentary came at the end of a piece about copy errors so abundant in a Washington Post sports story that some readers demanded a full refund for the day’s paper. “There is no excuse for such a shoddy product,” one reader wrote. “It’s completely unprofessional.” Indeed it is. The Internet has helped improve the quality of reporting in many cases and certainly has added perspective to today’s journalism that has been sorely lacking in news outlets dominated by liberals. But at the same time the Web has hurt the quality of writing. Readers, many of whom long ago stopped caring about good grammar in their personal communications, want the news now and care less whether the copy is clean. And reporters, long a grammatically challenged bunch, are happy to deliver substance inside a flawed package. Reader, writer and publisher alike seem to have decided that because you can’t judge a book by its cover, it’s OK to just slap a crappy cover on the book. That’s a shame. Copy editors are the unsung heroes of America’s newsrooms. They are master craftsmen of the written word, and they have saved many a writer (including this one) from embarrassing moments. Copy editing is one aspect of old media that needs to be a carryover in this new media era. Filed under: Grammar and Media and Technology Comments: 1 Comment |






