How nice. Do you assign them to read the crappiest literature too?

Sweetie, you are all that is wrong with higher, dumbed down, education.

The Kentucky Derby, the first of the Triple Crown races, (virtually everyone who is interested in this article already knows this. Get on with it for God’s sake.)

If I were to read a paper and come across a reference to the ostrich defense in a court what would I think of ? I consider myself pretty well informed, but I might think first of the way in which the ostrich defends itself, which is by kicking. The issue is not whether we know about the common legend of the ostrich burying its head in the sand, the question is what we would think of first when we hear the term. Furthermore, given the negative connotations of the ostrich-sand thing, I wouldnt’ even think that a defense lawyer would assert it (since the ostrich is not blameless, which is presumably what the defense lawyer is trying to establish for the defendant).

As far as people being able to look up references — err most people don’t read the paper online. Many read it on the bus, when eating, in the bathroom etc. Not easy to look up references there.

I also question this whole “third grade reading level” thing. How’d they figure that out? Did they give a reading comp test to their readers?

What Jeff Hess says above is right.

When you are dealing with a broad audience, you really want to make sure to explain to your readers just what you’re talking about, especially with an obscure reference.

I teach college composition, and I’ll tell you, they DO have a different set of cultural references — and they DON’T go scrambling for a dictionary when they come across something they don’t know (well, after my class, I hope they do).

Actually, I tell my students to assume, when writing their essays, that their reader doesn’t know jack.

That way their message will be crystal clear to the widest possible audience.

The Times’ audience is enormous. I don’t blame their reporters for following this rule.

I think it’s good reporting practice.

RBS

If you’re reading the FT or the Economist, you know the Big Four, the major consultancies… If you don’t, you can look it up. I would love to have specialist papers writing at something resembling a masters level reading comprehension. Since so many of use only read blogs, newspapers, business books, and presentations, a high bar for readability would be appreciated simply to maintain our own skills. You shouldn’t be aiming for a mass market, but for an elite readership.

what planet’s UK are you talking about, Jeff?

I am a foreign born American and I was always very impressed with this typically American capability of using the language in a purely instrumental way - to just deliver the intended message… without any extra referentiality.

I guess that because of the cultural diversity in America and the overall globalization, the English language will become even more instrumentilized and therefore simplified… forget paradigmatic referentiality, double meanings, idioms, etc.

As for the Times comment, I don’t see it as condescending — merely explanatory, even the analogy is flawed. Say “Ostrich defense” and I might assume “head buried in the sand” is what you mean. But reporting should answer questions rather than leave you guessing. I am a college graduate and this is the first time I have heard that term used. I wasn’t offended when I heard it, and I don’t fault the Times for spending a few words on it.

You live like an ostrich.

I agree. This is why I and my children must watch PBS instead of the major networks. Even if its a travel or cooking show, its still delivered with and understanding that the viewer has likely attended college, or at least graduated high school. The major commercial networks have decided ( and fox is the worst of these IMHO ) that the average viewer would rather watch mind-numbing reality TV than engage in a good drama, comedy, or ( gasp ) tradgedy, something which PBS has in abundance. In addition, PBS has been multicasting their digital TV signal for months now, something that the major networks refuse to do, except to put up a weather graphic. How un-original.

If I’m not on the computer during prime time, I usually read a book.

I wonder how many erudite Brits knew this was fallacious.

The problem w/ US papers is that they are all so caught up in reporting the so-called objective news. This makes them bloated with longer stories, (increasingly) fact-checking staff (certainly the case at US magazines), and huge staffs. I have no doubt that the engagement of social media by UK papers will only be faster than that of US peers because of these underlying structural differences.