Sources

McIntosh, Ewan.  “Blogging Improves Young People’s Confidence in Their Writing and Reading.” Edu.blog.com.  December 19, 2009.  http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2009/12/blogging-improves-young-peoples-confidence-writing-reading.html

According to Ewan McIntosh, social networking has given young people not only the opportunity to write more as well as read more than ever, but has improved their attitudes towards it as well.  In research conducted four years ago, blogging proved to improve writing by providing an audience to the student as well as improving reading.  According to BBC, the percentages of student that feel more confident in their writing are those that blog or use other social networking.  They found that it is a direct positive trend between the amount of forms of communication and strong literacy skills. 

            I think this source had good information, but I don’t think it was presented in the best way.  When reading it, I was a little confused as to what was happening.  In addition, I don’t think the author transitioned between each topic that they were covering.  He/She made good points but it could have been organized a lot better.  With this being said, I understand that it is a blog online so its purpose might not have been to present the information in a formal manner, but I think it would have been a lot easier to pull out the necessary information for someone to use. 

                                                                                                                  

Sutherland, John. “Can u txt?” The Guardian.  November 10, 2002.    

            According to Sutherland, “hurry sickness” is a major problem of our time and texting, because it’s quick, is a go-to for communication, especially in the UK.  He compares texting to “Snot-talk” by which he means it’s a one-time thing. Because of the 160-character limitation, abbreviation is key when texting.  Up to date (only 2002) it was seen as being a mainly European trend that the US hadn’t caught on to yet.  Sutherland continues that the language used in text messages is “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.” He blames the take-off popularity of texting on mental laziness and its ability to mask poor literacy skills and makes a point that the fad will be gone within a few years, once they come up with a newer technology.  Lastly, he brings up the point that writing is taking over speech in today’s world.  Where in the 13^th century there were very few “scribes”, today everyone is a scribe. 

            I do not agree with Sutherland.   Some texting may be unsophisticated and bleak as he says, but I do not think it is affecting our ability or desire to write.  Nor is it taking over our ability or desire to speak.  I realize that Sutherland wrote this article in 2002, before the real wave of texting had erupted, so it was seen more of a treat than it actually is.  His whole argument is based on what he thinks that texting is doing to people’s communication and is not backed by any concrete support.  He has a cynical tone that would offend some people that didn’t necessarily agree with him.  He should have written it more objectively, with facts to prove his point.  In the way that he wrote, he will not be able to convince any audience that has a differing opinion from his own, but instead probably only enrage him.  For this preason, his piece has no real purpose, because he isn’t aiming to convince or change anyone’s thought.  It seems as though he is writing simply to write.