Nicole Solis

My friend Tim just sent this link around, with the comment: “Hands down, THE BEST breakdown of journalism vs. ‘new media’ I have ever read.” Go Dan Tynan! Plus, he gets points for using “pompous windbagging” as a tag.

Link: tynan wood » My Job and Welcome to It.

Also, this reminded me of when the Daily Show did an item on one of Obama’s early press conferences when the President called on Sam Stein from the Huffington Post. Stewart said, “Huffington Post? What? That guy’s probably just going to link to the New York Times reporter’s question?” (at about 5:55)

It’s fascinating to me how quickly the conservative movement grasped this concept: that if you control the words people use to discuss something, you have a leg up in gaining control of the conversation. Ultimately, it’s true. The better you can communicate (and the more communication tools you have at your disposal), the better you’ll be able to sway others.

Link: Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus – NYTimes.com.

One letter, a world of difference.

Source: Company apologizes for ‘Natinals’ jersey error – MLB – Yahoo Sports.

Language Log’s latest post on less versus fewer also reminded me of Bob Sutton’s recent post on layoffs. Sutton’s general message: it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it.

Link: Language Log » Once more on less.

Occasionally, I stumble across articles that are an amazing use of someone’s deep journalistic skills. For example, this NY Times article about a pretty pithy topic — Bo, the White House dog — gets impressively deep. The reporting is solid, yet it’s clear that the reporter knows that he’s writing about the White House dog, especially when he quotes Thomas Aquinas. He incorporates just the right amount of absurdity in the piece on a fairly absurd topic. I love the art of it.

I want to coin a phrase for this type of article (absournalism? Ick. I need some help here).

Link: Does Bo Know He’s the President’s Dog? – NYTimes.com

Economist Paul Kedrosky (the other Paul K.) weighed in today on which French verb form we should really be using “laisser faire” or “laissez-faire.” I agree with his logic, but adding that level of complexity goes against the “borrowed words” tradition. At what point does franglais (or Spanglish, etc.) become English? In common speech, the rules of the parent language are often quickly abandoned (see “datum”), but academics and other high-falutin’ folks tend to follow the rules of the parent language. What about publishing people, who fall somewhere in the middle, promoting good use of our language but not putting it on a pedestal?

I think I’m sticking with “lassez-faire.”

Style note: Merriam-Webster uses a hyphen in both noun and adjective forms of “laissez-faire.”

Right before Valentine’s Day, PCWorld.com published my review of a few new online dating sites: “Online dating adds video, goes local.” The new trends in online dating seem to be about video speed dating and location-based dating. (If you can’t be with the one you love…)

Hi, folks.

I’m in the process of transferring my domain over to a new host, so the content here will be pretty paltry until I finish that. Until then, check out the About Me page and my clips.

Nicole