- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The title is kind of genius.
BTW I don’t see this as an actual issue. The important factor is which people read them. If it’s journalist who then report on them, and politicians who then act, then they are still effective. I don’t see why any average citizen should want to go and read them directly
Such texts are boring not because of their content but because of how they are written. The style of these texts is almost intended to prevent the reader from getting anything out of them. It’s believed that just by publishing these manuals and reports they meet a certain standard of democracy. But what this kind of writing does is to turn people away from reading. Such writing is, therefore, antidemocratic.
I feel like I comment this like once a week but plain language, y’all. Learn it, push it down people’s throat. Force everyone you know to use it, especially if you work in any kind of writing environment. I’m done with academia, corporate, or other bullshit writing. We need accessibility.
Ironically, the UN itself includes plain language in its definition of communication (in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
“Plain language? Similar to the wording used by the filthy plebeians? Pah!”
That also explains most countries’ stupid legalese in how laws are written.
That seriously is not their job. Imagine you would go to a climate scientist or astrophysicist and demand he dumb down his article that is geared towards other experts of the field.
The language needs to fit a certain standard to ensure it is scientifically sound. It is the job of the media, which it usually does terribly, to then extract the key findings in a language for a wider audience.
To remain neutral or dispassionate to a freedom system is to be against freedom
At least, that’s what we assume the report says.
I assume the article covers that.
Probably confirms my preconceived expectations.
Personally they should just be TLDRs.
That is what the press is for, and many reports include summaries.
They need the entire thing though, so the findings can be verified and scrutinized. You know how a one page abstract might give you the gist of a thesis, but you need the 100 pages of the thesis to make sure the conclusion is sound.
Anyone got a TL;DR?
The UN is struggling financially and this report makes the claim that there’s too many meetings and reports that no one reads. They said their most popular reports get 5000 downloads and 1 in 6 reports gets less than 1000 downloads.
So far i have contributed to that with my own 0
too many meetings and reports that no one reads
Sounds like they’re being run like a big corporation that is too big for their own good
UN something, something…
Thought this would be NotTheOnion
This is the first NotTheOnion-style headline I’ve seen in a looooong time that actually made me laugh. I miss when NotTheOnion wasn’t a constant reminder of the abysmal state of the world.
Sadly no one read this report either.
I’ll wait for the movie
I’ll read this later in a browser tab i keep open for at least a year.
