Uncategorized

This Folio article on staffing changes at the top of Print’s masthead (the editor was fired, and now the publisher is looking for a multi-platform content manager) feels emblematic of what’s going on all over the print world right now–especially if former editor Gordon is accurately describing her accomplishments, which sound like exactly what a content manager would do.

It reminds me of one of my new year’s resolutions: stop expecting praise or credit for my work.

The fact is everyone in publishing–from editors to publishers to the accountants to the receptionists–is panicking. No one knows what the future of our industry looks like. All we know is that we have to create it. And that is one thing the publishing industry is not used to. We’re used to innovating within the confines of a working business model. The business model no longer works. All hell has broken loose.

Looking at it through that light, you can see why good, smart, innovative people are being fired because higher-ups are looking for people who are even better, smarter, and more innovative–even though they don’t know what “innovative” looks like yet. This, of course, feeds staffers’ worst fears, stifles innovation, and keeps us stuck in the spin cycle.

Link: Multichannel-Bent Publishers Give Longtime Print Staffers the Cold Shoulder – Jason Fell – Blogs emedia and Technology @ FolioMag.com.

David Carr has a good post over on the NY Times Media Decoder blog about a Project for Excellence in Journalism study on the lack of reporting in blog posts. The study found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that an average of 8 out of 10 stories online contained no original reporting, but rather linked to reporting done by other sources.

Carr writes:

The activity has its merits, but truly kicking the can down the road and advancing the story is not generally one of them. Instead, we depend on the source material for insight, sometimes treating it as our own — the technical, legal term for that is stealing — or sometimes excerpting.

So, basically, bloggers add nothing except perhaps new audiences to the same content. But by saying “we depend on the source material for insight,” he also implies something much bigger: if we rely on traditional media for reporting AND for analysis, where will the ideas come from if print (or subscription-based journalism, as I am now thinking of it) dies?

Source: Reporting on a Scarcity of Reporting Without Reporting – Media Decoder Blog – NYTimes.com.

Editors and writers are faced on a daily, if not more frequent, basis with the failings of definitions. There are so many gradations to meaning–connotation, context, subtleties of usage–that it’s more difficult than I often think it should be to answer the question “Is this the right word?”

In a recent On Language column, Erin McKean offers an opposite, but equally complicated, perspective–that of the definer. McKean takes the dictionary dicussion beyond the standard descriptive and prescriptive debate and really gets to the heart of the matter: it’s simply impossible to truly define a word in a few sentences.

Though I feel uncomfortable with how McKean then goes on to use the article to promote her site, Wordnik (it feels a bit like using the Gray Lady for an infomercial), I do agree that her site is often a more useful resource for me than the traditional dictionaries. With definitions from multiple, trusted sources, it’s far more helpful than the purely user-generated round of online dictionaries (see Urban Dictionary, which, though useful, is a victim of a slightly wonkier version of the comment thread “me too!” effect). The usage examples are particularly helpful, often more so than the definitions themselves.

It’s interesting, too, to see how she has found a model for user-generated dictionary content that works and is helpful, as opposed to sites like the now defunct Wordie, which always seemed to me to be kind of a pointless intersection of social networking and dictionaries. (Wordie’s content has since been incorporated into Wordnik. Also, for the record, “bomb donkey” was a friend’s term, not mine.)

More resources: TED Blog: Erin McKean launches Wordnik — the revolutionary online dictionary.

Sometimes you need a human to prevent what looks like human error.

France: Automatic translation of La Tribune site garbles the news – Editors Weblog.

Mark Liberman over at Language Log published his thoughts on this quote, from Louis Aragon (translated from French):

I demand that my books be judged with utmost severity, by knowledgeable people who know the rules of grammar and logic, and who will seek beneath the footsteps of my commas the lice of my thought in the head of my style.

via Language Log » Beneath the footsteps of commas.

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.

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.”