LETTER: No apology is needed

LETTER: No apology is needed

The term “gonna” is not a mistake

I am responding to a letter sent by Peter Robson on Nov. 8 about how the “Editor should apologize to readers.”

His argument is that the editor should apologize for using the word “gonna” in the newspaper headline on Nov. 2.

In the letter, the author’s first line is, “The recent front-page headline in your newspaper is… a disgrace to your profession,” and that is a blatant attack on the integrity of the editor.

This angry writer is bashing the editor’s ability to produce a quality newspaper specifically with language choice.

The term “gonna” is not a mistake, but the author states, “There is no such word as gonna in the English language.” That is, in fact, not true.

The author makes a hasty conclusion when he states that there is no such word as “gonna.” The Merriam-Webster English Dictionary contains the term “gonna” and defines it as an informal word while also giving multiple examples for the word.

Another premise of the author’s is how the headline is “improperly phrased.” The word “gonna” in the headline was a reference to the movie Ghostbusters, spoofing the part of the song that goes, “Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!”

The writer jumps to the conclusion that the editor missed this grammatical error, but this is not the case. They were merely making a reference to a film.

The writer makes another statement on language by claiming that “society has enough language problems.”

He is claiming that the language on social media sites has downgraded the standard for grammar and language in day-to-day life and it shouldn’t be passed to the newspaper – which is true – but the writer of the article wanted to make a funny pop-culture reference.

This is not an example of the deterioration of language and not a simple Twitter account. It was a newspaper headline that, for most cases, gripped the attention of readers due to the Ghostbusters reference.

The lack of trust and respect in this response to the editor is very evident when the author writes on how the editor is disgraceful, improperly phrased, and, furthermore, that “[the editor] should be trying to educate and encourage proper terminology.”

Again, the writer attacks the editor and claims that the editor is in charge of a newspaper that has no educational value. This most certainly is not the case and one little word should not bring such scrutiny to the newspaper and, more importantly, the editor.

The author wants an apology for the readers but, as a young reader of this newspaper, I feel like no apology is necessary and that the incorporation of pop culture will attract a younger audience, which is what newspapers today need.

Chloe Belanger

Mission