Uncover hidden racial biases

So, there's been a lot of talk about racism this Black History Month. Aside from the New York Post snafu, it's been a pretty good one, says opinionator Charles Blow at the NYTimes.

He wrote a column you should read.

As encouragement to have more frank dialogue about the still-not-dead racism in America, he suggests readers take this Implicit racial bias test for themselves, to see what, if any subconscious racial biases they might have. It's rather cool, and only takes about 10 minutes of your time. Prepare to be surprised, and don't get offended. Read Blow's column first, to understand the importance of uncovering these hidden prejudices.

The Race ('Black - White' IAT) is the one everybody's been taking. Including me.

In defense of Twitter

It's high time I put forth an official endorsement for Twitter.

WHY

Before you stop reading, and before you hurl assumptions at me about it being "just another facebook-like status update forum," please pause and consider the following:

• The dirty secret to using Twitter successfully is NOT to answer the question, "What are you doing?"
• It has a number of uses, depending on your communication style and your purpose in using it: Journalists, entrepeneurs, public relations specialists, marketing directors, family members, bartenders and techies alike join in the conversation and enjoy it.
• Its 140-character posting limits require conciseness heretofore foreign to the blogging world.
• You can easily find and follow people in your career field, sharing tips and information.
• It's a great networking tool, especially for job seekers.
• It's all about who you follow. Sure, if you follow mostly your friends, it's likely not going to be all that enlightening or exciting. I recommend sticking with only your closest friends, and following mostly those in your field who rock at what they do. They've got the winning tips for you.
• Own a business? Work for one? Two words: viral marketing.
• Lots and lots of supporting apps: everything from Twitterific to your cell phone's text messaging feature to TweetDeck. You can Tweet from just about anywhere in the world.
• Sharing. information. in its truest form, sans accompaniment of long-winded third-party opinions.

So learn stuff.

Widen your network.

Listen in on the thoughts of experts. Interact and converse with them.

Spread the word. Share the love. Pass on information. Start a buzz. Stay in the loop.

HOW

A number of blogs list the unspoken rules of Twitter, and I've found Jeff Blankenburg's most helpful for new users of all types.

My personal experience with Twitter has definitely been a journey. I started in late summer last year just following a few people I knew, and quickly grew bored with it (since I could read their statuses on Facebook if I was really that interested).

I honestly don't remember what drew me back in, but it was probably all the encouragement from Poynter and the Society of Professional Journalists, since most journos are doing a lot of their communicating via Twitter -- even live Tweetcasts from, say, WH press conferences (loved reading those).

I got lucky and stumbled on a couple of high-energy journalists who enthusiastically kept recommending and "retweeting" (taking a Tweet from another Tweeter and passing it along, with credit, to your "followers," who are the ones reading your Tweets) other leading names in the field who in turn posted helpful links, thoughts and advice. Ever since, I've begun increasing the number and quality of people I follow, discovering masters of my field I had never even heard of. I have thus ended up reading far more interesting, varied and in-depth coverage of both headline and off-beat news, as well as insider news and analysis.

(My favorites to follow, for the record, are @jayrosen_NYU, @problogger, @suzanneyada, @jemimakiss, @Poynter, @jiconoclast.and @jeffjarvis.)

I took the leap this week in unlocking my Twitter feed, which has increased my following exponentially. Leading journos from all over the world are now reading my feed, and mostly just because I'm following awesome people and sharing the love; the educational value of the information we're all passing along through our network is priceless.

The key, I have found, is in finding the people worth following, and doing just that. Don't join Twitter just to broadcast your daily activities and thoughts or rants. Read. Listen. Think. Share.

Twitter, for me, is like a many-faceted newsfeed, almost like watching stories stream in on the AP wire. Only it's more diverse, it's more personal, it's more tailorable and it's quicker.

It has made me a faster reader, a better sharer; it's opened my eyes to trends and encouraged me in my professionalism and continuing education; it's given me a plethora of news reporting resources I never would have heard of otherwise. It has finally, but not least of all, connected me with people who can help me do anything from getting driving directions; to landing a new job; to discovering keyboard shortcuts for a task I want to do more quickly; to finding a helpful article about any topic I can dream up.

Stephen Baker at BusinessWeek wrote more than nine months ago in awe of the Twitter phenomenon:

"Businesses such as H&R Block (HRB) and Zappos are now using Twitter to respond to customer queries. Market researchers look to it to scope out minute-by-minute trends. Media groups are focusing on Twitterers as first-to-the-scene reporters. (They were on top of the May 12 China earthquake within minutes.) Loads of new applications and services are growing around the Twitter platform, leading some to suggest that the microblogging service could become a powerhouse in social media."

It is a powerhouse now.

It's viral.

It's Twitter.

How news outlets can survive: dispelling myths about newspaper revenue

This is the part where I explain that people are wrong when they look at me enviously and say, "You're so lucky, working in news, because you know your job is safe."

Nuh-uh. I am not safe.

Gannett's approximately 40,000 reporters, editors, techies and other news support employees nationwide have been ordered to participate in a companywide weeklong furlough.

Story here.

I know several Gannett employees, and this is kind of lame for them, but it's a reasonable short-term solution to the pinch all of us news outlets are feeling due to the archaic business model our publishing companies cling to so tenaciously. Anyway, a furlough is better than a permanent layoff, any day.

Inside my company, we have faced a salary freeze, and our Christmas bonuses were reduced from previous years.

These are not acceptable long-term solutions, however. Long-term solutions will be far more revolutionary, and will require a better understanding of where our revenue comes from.

Most people assume these penny-pinching moves mean fewer people are reading the news, because they believe news outlets make money from circulation and subscriptions. This is absolutely not true -- if it were, how would you explain, say, network news' income?

Another common myth is that newspaper subscriptions ought naturally to increase during times of recession, because "people are looking for job listings, right?" Wrong.

First of all, it's a lot easier to look for and apply for jobs online, these days, than to read the Classifieds.

Second, news outlets make money in advertising -- not subscriptions. Approximately 10 percent of our revenue comes from subscriptions. The other 90 percent? You guessed it: our advertisers.

So, naturally, when the economy is in a recession and businesses are closing and cutting expenses, newspapers suffer. We have fewer advertisers, and the ones we are able to retain purchase smaller and fewer ads. The number of our pages is reduced, therefore the need for copy is reduced, so the need to employ as many people to produce, edit and print the copy is also reduced. You see?

That does not, however, mean fewer people are reading the news. They ARE reading the news, just in a more convenient and cheaper format: the Internet.

A good way to respond to our hurting economy is to make ads cheaper, so more businesses are able to afford them. The best way to do this is to reduce overhead, and we could do that by transitioning to the Internet and reducing paper/ink use.

A great way to make those ads even more appealing is to ensure they will have a larger audience. We can do THAT by offering more and better content on the Internet, augmenting what we have in print. Continuous updates throughout the day, multimedia packaging (slide shows, video, audio, etc), blogs, etc.

There are a lot of ongoing discussions here among paper editors about utilizing the Internet more effectively (we could use it, for sure). Our ads people are the biggest opponents, ironically.

Wish they realized, if they don't jump on board and make this new model work, there won't BE a news outlet anymore, much less ads to sell for it.

Sorry to say it, but our aging population in this area will soon be gone, and at that point, we will be contending for the attention of two generations who rely almost exclusively on the Internet for their news, shopping and networking (among countless other things). They will not be reading the paper, and our advertisers will not be willing to pay for ads in a paper nobody reads.

This sounds fatalistic, but I firmly believe this situation can be improved by letting go of the traditional media business model and leaping into the 21st Century with the rest of the world. Reporters and news outlets are not a dying breed, their job descriptions are merely changing. Their bosses just need to accept this and accommodate it.

In response to the "grammar NAZIS" accusation...

[In case you haven't already, you really ought to go read Jonathan's post in which he rather forcefully denounces "grammar NAZIS." I then invite you -- no -- implore you to come back and read my response, below.]

Dear Jonathan,

I understand some of your frustration, and I try to maintain an attitude of understanding and lenience toward some misuses and abuses of the English language in this era -- because, as you said, language is constantly evolving.

I am most forgiving in the texting realm; less so in the blogging realm, because people who blog generally have access to full keyboards, complete with a handy backspace option. You will notice, however, that I nearly always refrain from correcting and thereby making enemies of my fellow bloggers. I simply endure, and try to make heads or tails of some brilliant ideas buried underneath piles of misplaced apostrophes, run-on sentences and atrocious to/too/two confusion. The paucity of semicolons I will reserve for another post later on.

Notwithstanding my and anybody else's endurance of grammatical errors galore, the evolution of language does not excuse those who abuse the communication tool. People who speak and write in the language (and want to make a contribution to the already-BEYOND-overwhelming mass of published work -- much of it grammatically sound) really don't have a good excuse for not knowing its (not it's) proper uses.

Plenty of grammarians break language rules all the time, but they do it with precise intention, and for a useful purpose. And you can tell the difference between their intellectual rebellion and the outright ignorance so prevalent among bloggers and other writers of this brave new writing world.

For example, the evolution of a word like "text" from a noun into a verb is an intelligent, useful linguistic development. It demonstrates not only technological and societal acumen, but a keen sense of style as well. The blurring of the apostrophe's proper place and function does neither.

All language abuses, misuses and other developments should be justifiable for the sake of clarity and better communication. Blogging world, take note.

Writing "your" when you really mean to say "you're" only places me under the mistaken impression that you are referring to a <noun> in my possession; how on earth am I to know you intended to address me directly if you do not say so? Confusion of possession/plurality/direct address is a serious grammatical crime.

All that said, I understand your frustration with people who comment on your posts only to criticize your grammar. My suggestion would be to a) make the suggested changes to your posts (heck, I have to proof and edit mine numerous times before I get them right) and b) to retaliate and criticize theirs in turn. This will be good practice for you, and it qualifies as community service, as you're helping to make the blogosphere a better place to communicate.

Incidentally, you claim you do not criticize people for trigonometric ineptitude; however, if they were attempting to communicate a trigonometric concept to you, you would find it offensive if they did not do their homework and understand the concept in full before trying to teach it or use it for an analogy. Otherwise, they're just wasting your time. People who purport to be good writers of things they want others to read ought to at least demonstrate a better-than-average grasp on the language in which they are trying to communicate; otherwise, they should lay (not lie) the pen down or step away from the keyboard.

I chose to post this on my own blog instead of in your comments section, in hopes you might be more likely to read it; and also, because you instructed grammarians not to comment if they only wanted to disagree with you.

Affectionately,

A faithful reader

Recommended reading:

For the mechanics of grammar:

• "Working With Words" by Brian S. Brooks, James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy Wilson
  
• "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk and E.B. White
  
• "The Classic Guide to Writing Well" by Rudolph Flesch
  
• [more to come later when I have had a chance to peruse my bookcase at home]

For style:

• "Spunk & Bite: A Writer's Guide to Bold, Contemporary Style" by Arthur Plotnik
  
• "Best Newspaper Writing" (any year, any editors. My personal favorite is the 2007 edition) -- this is a FABULOUS catalogue of exemplary writing in all styles.
  
• "Writing With Style" by John R. Trimble
  
• [again, more once I've had a chance to look through my library]

Why it's irrelevant what ring the president-elect MIGHT HAVE bought his wife

There are several criteria for newsworthiness that journalists use ALL THE TIME to determine whether and how to pitch a story to their editors:

Timing: Is it a new event or development? We're going to skip over analysis of this one, since the "story" doesn't fit the other criteria and it therefore doesn't matter how timely it is.

Significance: Usually we measure this in number of people affected by the story. This affects, at most, five people. Obama, Michelle, their kids, and the alleged jeweler. None of us are affected by his personal decision, and this is a pretty darn good reason not to care. If the reporter thinks there's a good reason we should care, he/she should share that with us. Give impact to your story. Rule No. 1 in any good story: IMPACT.

Proximity: The U.K. is not really that close to the U.S., so they really have no business digging into the personal lives of our president-elect without significant cause to do so. For the sake of giving The Daily Mail the benefit of the doubt, geographical distance is not the only thing implied in proximity. It can also mean that a person/organization's situation is very similar to, you know, a lot of people's, and is therefore a microcosm of a larger trend/threat/what-have-you. A story that demonstrates good use of the proximity factor would be one people read and go, "Oh wow, I should keep that in mind," or "That could have been me." I don't really know of anyone doing that.

Prominence: This is the only newsworthiness criterion the ring fib fits. Because Obama is famous. If, say, Joe The Plumber bought a ring for his wife, we wouldn't -- wait, no, bad example. If your hubby bought you a new ring, I promise you it would not make the headlines. Because Obama is a prominent figure, anything and everything he does is automatically a candidate for at least the inside pages of your nearest newspaper.

Human Interest: Human interest stories can break a lot of the other rules of newsworthiness, because they're tearjerkers, inspirational pieces, amusing ones, etc. Their purpose is to evoke emotion. They often don't age quickly and are relatively timeless. The ring fib neither inspired, amused nor provoked weeping. Also, even for the two people who care today, who is going to care, say, next month?