Coverage of language innovation is an urgent issue for many media. Especially in the new media age, rigid language, stereotypes and expressions are becoming increasingly difficult for readers to accept. Why, then, did some media coverage highlight the problems of ageing and rigidity
First, it's the rigidity of thinking. With the progress of national development and the acceleration of the modernization process, the pluralist character of society is becoming more visible and public channels of expression are increasing. In such a situation, media coverage must change mindsets. Some media are not fully adapted to the new circumstances and still view a plethora of lives with a single look, which is difficult to avoid by the reader. As a result, linguistic innovation in reporting is first and foremost an innovation in the way of thinking, and it is necessary to improve the novelty and flexibility of reporting by focusing on multiple perspectives. In this process, of course, the media must have their own value judgements, positions and attitudes that lead and guide public opinion and promote the reform and development of the country and social harmony and stability。
The second is that research is not very thorough. Life is rich in diversity, language is alive and stories that go deep cannot be rigid. In particular, as modern life becomes richer and society becomes more complex, a news story tends to involve multiple stakeholders, and one problem often has complex causes, and if the interviewer has the resilience to discover the context, the report must be lively。
In practice, however, some interviewers do not study in depth. They are either first-hand in their views, merely as a process of finding the material to support them; or, without the pursuit and spirit of inexhaustibleness, they are satisfied with the parchment of their skins; or they lack the cognitive and judgemental capacity of complex situations and are susceptible to superficiality。
Thus, solid research is at all times the core of media competitiveness and an important sign of media professionalism and specialization, even in the new media age。
Again becauseInnovationNot enough. Some media have their own old adages, the usual title format and the way they are drafted, and for a long period of time they become eight. For example, the title is created, experience is presented in the habit of using “the revelation of ...” and negative phenomena are used in the tradition of “quite alert ...”; and, for example, in the formulation of “three-part theory”: the phenomenon is described in the first paragraph, the causes are analysed in the middle and recommendations are made in the last paragraph. These techniques, which are inexorable and appropriate, are also good, but whatever is thought, once set out, it is always tiresome。
In the new media age, traditional media are facing serious challenges to their survival and it is imperative to move forward with innovative language of reporting. In this process, traditional media practitioners have to change their minds and make two changes。
First, the level of specialization and professionalism has been improved. Media practitioners need to be professionalized and professionalized, and to be more critical in identifying problems and finding unique entry points for reporting. At the same time, solid research should be carried out and reports of dew beads written with feet and sweat。
Second, to keep up with the times, to keep changing. The times are changing, as are the needs of readers, which are constantly changing, changing narratives and reporting languages. In the new media age, traditional media reports are proactive in responding to the reader's reading habits and needs in the new media age, adapting traditional narratives with new media elements, making proactive interfaces with new media reporting formats and enhancing integration with new media terminals。
In the new media era, traditional media must change the language of their coverage, but there is currently some bias in this regard among some media, which have used the misappropriation of internet language as a way and means of reporting language innovations. Some of these are indeed lively, reflecting the self-revolution and self-development of languages, although they are mixed, and there is a serious stigma attached to them. While languages have self-purification functions, in times of social transition there is a sense of irritation, and some of them have been exported, resulting in their prevalence over time and in some socio-cultural stigma。
The media cannot contribute to this, let alone accept such “innovation”. The media need to be determined and critical in terms of online language, incorporating its innovative elements and not being too popular, as well as in terms of thinking about innovative reporting。
(author: bimonthly magazine)
