A brief rant on academic journals

I am currently swamped with dozens of difficult to read, hard to understand mass communication journals written by a bunch of undoubtedly pompous scholars.

These said scholars (of which is my misfortune to come across at this time of writing as compulsory reading) all talk in a garbled, roundabout language. They ought to be lined up and shot. What's the point of writing an article and/or journal when it puts people off by giving us all a headache and a tough time understanding?

The main purpose of such academic journals is to present, convey, and/or teach; so why make it so difficult for students to understand, when it can all be put into much simpler terms? While mass communication is indeed a broad area of study and there are many means of delivering a message, isn't the bottom line... to deliver it clearly?

In my opinion, these so-called scholars and academicians of communicative studies are definitely poor in that particular aspect. Perhaps they are so in-over-their-heads with technicalities and the fact that they "know so much more" than the laymen, that they no longer remember their main objectives. As a journalism major I am taught that Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity are the most important facets of good writing - hence, their work is disagreeing very violently with my insides.

Yours truly,
Rachel Lau Ching-mei
(Fed-up student)