In the news section there is a piece about how a Cleveland Plain Dealer editor recommends that his newsmen and columnists write at a 5th grade level. 

He advises that writers use something called the "Flesch-Kincaid" test.  He
cites several literary award-winning authors whose works score very low
on the test (the lower the score, the easier the read), as he makes the
point that writing doesn’t have to be complex to be of quality.  Of
course, this is true, but . . . .

This advice isn’t unusual, as conventional journalism-school wisdom
holds that you should keep it simple.  I must say, though, I find this
distressing and silly.

Everything is being dumbed-down nowadays, starting in elementary school
and now, obviously, reaching into old age.  And speaking of older ages,
if you read news pieces from bygone days, you’ll see that writers were
more literate and didn’t feel they had to remain on a low plane.  Why
today does everything have to be made to suit the lowest common
denominator? 

When I write, I’m well aware of the fact that I sometimes use words
that are a tad esoteric (and "esoteric" is esoteric).  So, I don’t do
it because I’m out of touch, nor am I irredeemably pompous.  I don’t
lay on labyrinthine verbiage, but I also know something: If people are
never challenged, they won’t improve themselves.  After all, words can
often be understood based on context.

Besides, there is something called a dictionary.

As to this, I started listening to talk radio in my teens.  One of our
local hosts was an acid-tongued fellow with a quite expansive
vocabulary, and he would s0metimes use a word I couldn’t comprehend.  But I
used that dictionary, and I was happy I had learned.

The newspaper editor I mentioned also talks about how the New York Times prints
pieces with relatively complex language, perhaps implying that this may
be a source of its current woes (it’s losing circulation like a
gangrening limb).  His thesis seems to be that if newspapers want to
retain readers (the print media has been listing in general), they have
to keep the writing simple.

I think this is simplistic thinking.  First, it strikes me that they
just might be doing nothing but dumbing-down writing so that people who
don’t read newspapers can read them.  After all, who really believes
that people who require "See Dick run" writing are reading news and
commentary anyway?  I’m sorry if I sound too elitist, but I know that
those who deeply imbibe news and commentary are a relatively erudite
bunch.  The rest are . . . well, watching MTV, thinking (to the extent
that they do) about their next body piercing or tattoo, or are found at
ball games with painted faces.

Then, if the print media want to maintain their status, they have to
focus on substance, not style.  It’s their leftist bias that alienates
people, not their language.  I mean, think about it: When was the last
time you ever heard of someone canceling his subscription because the
paper was too tough a read?

So, print media, listen closely.  If you want to compete with the new
media, get the ossified leftist ideologues out of the newsroom.  And,
here’s a radical idea for you.  Ready? 

Hire some real traditionalists who will offer up some red meat. 

This would add some pizazz to your plain vanilla rags; it would be a
nice contrast to the politically correct journalism school retreads
you’ve been leaning on. 

Oh, and jettison the "enlightened" editors who reject anything truly
intellectual, serve up pablum, and then tell you that the problem is
that the left-wing propaganda hasn’t been dumbed-down enough to appeal
to the people they think they’re fooling.