I recently noticed something about my blog that somewhat displeases me.
My last three posts all say they went up November 1.
The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.
However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.
I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.
I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...
I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.
Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...
As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.
I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.
As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.
For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.
Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...
For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.
It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.
I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.
So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.
So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Writing Like a Text
I've talked about quality writing before and I've talked about how texting is not English. In that latter post, I mentioned that I had other reasons for not considering texting to be English.
Now I will address some other such reasons. Specifically the lack of grammar, punctuation and capitalization in most texts.
Unlike proper written English, text language often has no, or minimal, punctuation. If you're lucky, you might see a period, maybe a comma. (Though I do have to concede that most people sending texts do have to deal with a character limit.) Most of the time, none at all. However, the exclamation mark seems to be the most common since people sending texts lean toward the dramatic...
There is a little fluke with some punctuation. Some words that should have apostrophes but don't when used in text language actually do create real words, just with very different meanings. For example - won't and wont. One is saying you will not do something, but the other is something you are inclined to do.
As for grammar, well since that falls into divisions that are specifically denoted by punctuation as well as sentence structure, and you're not likely to see much of that either.
Say I want to explain something to you, but I want to make sure it's clear. Secondary clauses, agreement and more. That means, if I want to mark each aspect of the idea, I have to show you the divides. That is done through my grammar and my punctuation working in conjunction, demonstrating my idea.
The lack of these two items alone makes the style of text language almost too fluid to follow. Most of the time, you have to read the message out loud to even figure out what it's saying.
And it really doesn't help that things are rarely capitalized. Not even I, let alone the beginnings of sentences or proper nouns. It's a lower case blur.
Capital letters can help express importance or recognize the status of something. If I'm saying something about myself or about a well-known landmark, I should denote such things by capitalizing the terms, such as Montmartre, Harrisonburg, United Kingdom, Hans Christian Anderson, Clovis, just to name a few...
On top of that, the sheer oddity of spelling in such messages... Very confusing at times. And there are days when I have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to write.
For example, here's a sample of text language I recently saw - "i neva wuda thought in million years she wud do sumn like dis."
If you say it out loud, you can get most of the message, which translates into "I never would have thought in a millions years she would do something like this."
Neva for never, wuda for would have, sumn for something and dis for this.
It seems rather ironic to me that some of these idiosyncrasies of texting are actually the way people speak these days. It really bugs me when I hear someone say "ax" for "ask." And all the dropped t's and d's. It's mountain, not mounian. Bottle, not bodle.
The hardest word in the English language might be "the" or it might be "lollipop," but "dat" doesn't mean you should become sloppy and not say "that" correctly!
Somewhere running around there's a children's book that says avoid the gonnas and wannas. Well, I'm going to find that one because I want to have other people remember to speak clearly. I think it's called "English Can be Fun" by Herbert Prescott.
Ever tried to read one of the poems from "Oh Say Can You Say?" by Dr. Seuss out loud? Now that's a test students should take! Not the Standards of Learning exams that seem to leave every child behind and promote mediocrity.
Enunciate! As I often yell at my nephew who has a nasty tendency to mumble and slur his words so badly I have absolutely no idea what is coming out of his mouth...
So from spoken to written. The beginnings of modern text language appear to have developed in sloppy speaking. As Henry Higgins once said, "In America, they haven't used [English] for years."
How about this one - its messed up that sum ppl miss use stuff like this
OK, that one reads "It's messed up that some people misuse stuff like this." Not that tricky a one until you get to the "miss use."
How about this one - "id advise u to get to no ur son a lil better cause from the sound of it u dont no anything about him."
Lots of common forms of text language there. Translation - "I'd advise you to get to know your son a little better because from the sound of it you don't know anything about him."
Here's a nice long one that might mess you up - i cant belive all they gave tht pos is 6 years he should have gt mre oh well hopfully hell get real aquanted with a big black guy n prison he better hope i dnt c him cause we gta talk if i were him id hide cause i gt people in all the correctional facilitys in virginia.... o n sissy pull the wool out from your eyes he was the CROWED he was the influence he gt all those people to follow him.... n hell most of these people were inosent
Translation - "I can't believe all they gave that piece of shit is six years. He should have got more. Oh well, hopefully he'll get real acquainted with a big black guy in prison. He better hope I don't see him because we got to talk. If I were him, I'd hide because I got people in all the correctional facilities in Virginia. Oh, and sissy, pull the wool out from your eyes. He was the crowd, he was the influence. He got all those people to follow him. And hell, most of these people were innocent."
Took a couple of times reading that one to make sense of the mangle. And that specific example is very good to see the degeneration of spelling. Inosent for innocent. Aquanted for acquainted.
Makes me think of that old e-mail joke where the Germans wanted everyone to speak German, not English, but when the other countries wouldn't agree to it, the Germans insisted on various changes and English almost got changed back its Germanic roots in the end anyway... I still have a copy of that e-mail somewhere. I shall have to find it...
But I specifically remember things like getting rid of the hard "c" and replacing it with a "k." Or getting rid of the silent e... Most of the rule changes affected writing... There were numerous examples in the original message. I just can't remember all of them.
And exclaiming "Y'all come back, y'hear!" Or asking someone "D'jeat?" (If you don't know what that second one is, it's "did you eat?")
"Enuf already!!" Are we truly becoming so lazy that we can't even speak, or write, in such a way as to make ourselves clearly and easily understood?
Maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned, but I find the degradation of English to be a disturbing and disheartening transition...
To put it bluntly, I believe texting is becoming the English version of Pig Latin or even Creole.
I'd be most "gr8ful" to never have to see such language again (license plates notwithstanding). People really "shud chek" what they're writing and saying because who knows "whut" you'll see or hear next.
Posting Date - January 30, 2011
Now I will address some other such reasons. Specifically the lack of grammar, punctuation and capitalization in most texts.
Unlike proper written English, text language often has no, or minimal, punctuation. If you're lucky, you might see a period, maybe a comma. (Though I do have to concede that most people sending texts do have to deal with a character limit.) Most of the time, none at all. However, the exclamation mark seems to be the most common since people sending texts lean toward the dramatic...
There is a little fluke with some punctuation. Some words that should have apostrophes but don't when used in text language actually do create real words, just with very different meanings. For example - won't and wont. One is saying you will not do something, but the other is something you are inclined to do.
As for grammar, well since that falls into divisions that are specifically denoted by punctuation as well as sentence structure, and you're not likely to see much of that either.
Say I want to explain something to you, but I want to make sure it's clear. Secondary clauses, agreement and more. That means, if I want to mark each aspect of the idea, I have to show you the divides. That is done through my grammar and my punctuation working in conjunction, demonstrating my idea.
The lack of these two items alone makes the style of text language almost too fluid to follow. Most of the time, you have to read the message out loud to even figure out what it's saying.
And it really doesn't help that things are rarely capitalized. Not even I, let alone the beginnings of sentences or proper nouns. It's a lower case blur.
Capital letters can help express importance or recognize the status of something. If I'm saying something about myself or about a well-known landmark, I should denote such things by capitalizing the terms, such as Montmartre, Harrisonburg, United Kingdom, Hans Christian Anderson, Clovis, just to name a few...
On top of that, the sheer oddity of spelling in such messages... Very confusing at times. And there are days when I have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to write.
For example, here's a sample of text language I recently saw - "i neva wuda thought in million years she wud do sumn like dis."
If you say it out loud, you can get most of the message, which translates into "I never would have thought in a millions years she would do something like this."
Neva for never, wuda for would have, sumn for something and dis for this.
It seems rather ironic to me that some of these idiosyncrasies of texting are actually the way people speak these days. It really bugs me when I hear someone say "ax" for "ask." And all the dropped t's and d's. It's mountain, not mounian. Bottle, not bodle.
The hardest word in the English language might be "the" or it might be "lollipop," but "dat" doesn't mean you should become sloppy and not say "that" correctly!
Somewhere running around there's a children's book that says avoid the gonnas and wannas. Well, I'm going to find that one because I want to have other people remember to speak clearly. I think it's called "English Can be Fun" by Herbert Prescott.
Ever tried to read one of the poems from "Oh Say Can You Say?" by Dr. Seuss out loud? Now that's a test students should take! Not the Standards of Learning exams that seem to leave every child behind and promote mediocrity.
Enunciate! As I often yell at my nephew who has a nasty tendency to mumble and slur his words so badly I have absolutely no idea what is coming out of his mouth...
So from spoken to written. The beginnings of modern text language appear to have developed in sloppy speaking. As Henry Higgins once said, "In America, they haven't used [English] for years."
How about this one - its messed up that sum ppl miss use stuff like this
OK, that one reads "It's messed up that some people misuse stuff like this." Not that tricky a one until you get to the "miss use."
How about this one - "id advise u to get to no ur son a lil better cause from the sound of it u dont no anything about him."
Lots of common forms of text language there. Translation - "I'd advise you to get to know your son a little better because from the sound of it you don't know anything about him."
Here's a nice long one that might mess you up - i cant belive all they gave tht pos is 6 years he should have gt mre oh well hopfully hell get real aquanted with a big black guy n prison he better hope i dnt c him cause we gta talk if i were him id hide cause i gt people in all the correctional facilitys in virginia.... o n sissy pull the wool out from your eyes he was the CROWED he was the influence he gt all those people to follow him.... n hell most of these people were inosent
Translation - "I can't believe all they gave that piece of shit is six years. He should have got more. Oh well, hopefully he'll get real acquainted with a big black guy in prison. He better hope I don't see him because we got to talk. If I were him, I'd hide because I got people in all the correctional facilities in Virginia. Oh, and sissy, pull the wool out from your eyes. He was the crowd, he was the influence. He got all those people to follow him. And hell, most of these people were innocent."
Took a couple of times reading that one to make sense of the mangle. And that specific example is very good to see the degeneration of spelling. Inosent for innocent. Aquanted for acquainted.
Makes me think of that old e-mail joke where the Germans wanted everyone to speak German, not English, but when the other countries wouldn't agree to it, the Germans insisted on various changes and English almost got changed back its Germanic roots in the end anyway... I still have a copy of that e-mail somewhere. I shall have to find it...
But I specifically remember things like getting rid of the hard "c" and replacing it with a "k." Or getting rid of the silent e... Most of the rule changes affected writing... There were numerous examples in the original message. I just can't remember all of them.
And exclaiming "Y'all come back, y'hear!" Or asking someone "D'jeat?" (If you don't know what that second one is, it's "did you eat?")
"Enuf already!!" Are we truly becoming so lazy that we can't even speak, or write, in such a way as to make ourselves clearly and easily understood?
Maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned, but I find the degradation of English to be a disturbing and disheartening transition...
To put it bluntly, I believe texting is becoming the English version of Pig Latin or even Creole.
I'd be most "gr8ful" to never have to see such language again (license plates notwithstanding). People really "shud chek" what they're writing and saying because who knows "whut" you'll see or hear next.
Posting Date - January 30, 2011
Monday, November 1, 2010
Addendum to Benefit or Bane
Very early on, I wrote a post about most news outlets using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even back then, I had noticed a rather disturbing trend in viewer/reader interaction through such sites.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
Text Language Is NOT English!
OMG 4COL! There are times, if someone sends me a text on my phone or an instant messenger, I have to look up what that person has actually written. For instance, you probably know what the OMG stands for, but you might not know what 4COL is. I certainly wouldn't know that stands for "for crying out loud."
I did have to look that one up and there are numerous sites out there where you can learn what various text-language messages mean. Just Google it!
But I'm not kidding when I say those kinds of message are not English! Why? Well there can be several reasons, not the least of which is that not everyone knows what it means. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
Anybody got some translator microbes? (And if you get that reference, you're a scifi geek just like me!)
I was recently at a function where I ran into an old teacher I know and a person I went to school with who has since been a teacher. We got to talking about language and the changes we have seen in the last several years.
I mentioned a story I have heard about, though not independently confirmed, that some college-level writing classes have begun accepting papers with text language. Both of the people to whom I was speaking told me they had seen such papers in the classes they taught at the high school level. One even mentioned a student protesting a poor grade on such a paper, saying something about, "Well I could do that last year."
There are days I simply know I'm not cut out to be a teacher. I get frustrated too easily and these kinds of things... Splinter under your nail, anybody? Or how about fingernails on a chalkboard? Not that a lot younger people would know what a chalkboard is anymore, or what fingernails sound like when dragged down one. *wince*
If I were a teacher and was handed a paper containing such text-language writing, I probably wouldn't even read it. It would be handed back to the student with a big, red letter on it. And no, that would not be an A. Nor am I referencing a well known book by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think, in some ways, this sort of devolution of written language is why I see some of the mistakes I wrote about in my last post. People have become accustomed to seeing acronyms for phrases, such as LOL (laugh out loud) or TTYL (talk to you later).
Why should people bother knowing how to properly write something when they can just fill in the blanks with "WIBNI people would STFU?" (In case you need a translation, that says "Wouldn't it be nice if people would shut the 'freak' up?") Someone's probably thinking that about me right now. But you know what? Since this is MY blog, I can say almost anything I want, within reason. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to read.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of bloggers leave their reason at the door to the room where they have their computer. Just saying, I have seen some really out there things in blogs that make me wonder if some people have any gray matter. Oh well!
Back on topic...
I have to admit I was rather dismayed, though not surprised, to learn that sexual language has also cropped up in these shorthands. For example, I saw LH6 on one of the many "dictionaries" of text language I found online. That apparently stands for "let's have sex." No, I'm not propositioning you... Just giving an example.
With the recent news regarding sexting and child pornography, I have to wonder if officers have this kind of "dictionary" in which to look up some of these things. Otherwise, how in the world do they know if some of what they see actually falls under the umbrella of sexting?
Now that sexting has become a serious crime, even if it involves two minors, it must be an issue to address. And again, I'm not sure a lot of older people, even though I don't quite fall into that range yet, would understand the short-hand messages that fly between the phones, smart phones and computers to which the younger generations have become so attached.
At any rate, because these messages have to be translated, whether by looking up the integral parts or by someone who actually "speaks the language," I do not consider text language to be English.
Perhaps it is growing into a separate dialect. But it is no longer the language that is supposedly taught in schools.
I have at least two other reasons I don't consider this kind of writing to be English that easily come to mind. However, due to the length of this post, I will discuss both of them (as they are related) in a future post.
In case you are interested - Here are some links to online "text dictionaries" I found...
Text Message Abbreviations from Webopedia
"The Largest List of Text Message Shorthand (IM, SMS) and Internet Acronyms" from NetLingo
Translate Your Txt Messages from Lingo2Word
There's even some for the various "smileys" you can use.
I'm sure there are more, but why try and list all of them? Like the Internet itself, this "language" is in an almost constant state of flux. That means the definitions might change over time...
Posted Thanksgiving weekend 2010.
I did have to look that one up and there are numerous sites out there where you can learn what various text-language messages mean. Just Google it!
But I'm not kidding when I say those kinds of message are not English! Why? Well there can be several reasons, not the least of which is that not everyone knows what it means. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
Anybody got some translator microbes? (And if you get that reference, you're a scifi geek just like me!)
I was recently at a function where I ran into an old teacher I know and a person I went to school with who has since been a teacher. We got to talking about language and the changes we have seen in the last several years.
I mentioned a story I have heard about, though not independently confirmed, that some college-level writing classes have begun accepting papers with text language. Both of the people to whom I was speaking told me they had seen such papers in the classes they taught at the high school level. One even mentioned a student protesting a poor grade on such a paper, saying something about, "Well I could do that last year."
There are days I simply know I'm not cut out to be a teacher. I get frustrated too easily and these kinds of things... Splinter under your nail, anybody? Or how about fingernails on a chalkboard? Not that a lot younger people would know what a chalkboard is anymore, or what fingernails sound like when dragged down one. *wince*
If I were a teacher and was handed a paper containing such text-language writing, I probably wouldn't even read it. It would be handed back to the student with a big, red letter on it. And no, that would not be an A. Nor am I referencing a well known book by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think, in some ways, this sort of devolution of written language is why I see some of the mistakes I wrote about in my last post. People have become accustomed to seeing acronyms for phrases, such as LOL (laugh out loud) or TTYL (talk to you later).
Why should people bother knowing how to properly write something when they can just fill in the blanks with "WIBNI people would STFU?" (In case you need a translation, that says "Wouldn't it be nice if people would shut the 'freak' up?") Someone's probably thinking that about me right now. But you know what? Since this is MY blog, I can say almost anything I want, within reason. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to read.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of bloggers leave their reason at the door to the room where they have their computer. Just saying, I have seen some really out there things in blogs that make me wonder if some people have any gray matter. Oh well!
Back on topic...
I have to admit I was rather dismayed, though not surprised, to learn that sexual language has also cropped up in these shorthands. For example, I saw LH6 on one of the many "dictionaries" of text language I found online. That apparently stands for "let's have sex." No, I'm not propositioning you... Just giving an example.
With the recent news regarding sexting and child pornography, I have to wonder if officers have this kind of "dictionary" in which to look up some of these things. Otherwise, how in the world do they know if some of what they see actually falls under the umbrella of sexting?
Now that sexting has become a serious crime, even if it involves two minors, it must be an issue to address. And again, I'm not sure a lot of older people, even though I don't quite fall into that range yet, would understand the short-hand messages that fly between the phones, smart phones and computers to which the younger generations have become so attached.
At any rate, because these messages have to be translated, whether by looking up the integral parts or by someone who actually "speaks the language," I do not consider text language to be English.
Perhaps it is growing into a separate dialect. But it is no longer the language that is supposedly taught in schools.
I have at least two other reasons I don't consider this kind of writing to be English that easily come to mind. However, due to the length of this post, I will discuss both of them (as they are related) in a future post.
In case you are interested - Here are some links to online "text dictionaries" I found...
Text Message Abbreviations from Webopedia
"The Largest List of Text Message Shorthand (IM, SMS) and Internet Acronyms" from NetLingo
Translate Your Txt Messages from Lingo2Word
There's even some for the various "smileys" you can use.
I'm sure there are more, but why try and list all of them? Like the Internet itself, this "language" is in an almost constant state of flux. That means the definitions might change over time...
Posted Thanksgiving weekend 2010.
Quality Writing...
If there is one thing that bothers me about the dependence on technology so many people have developed, it is the simple fact that spell check DOESN'T catch everything! In fact, it'll sometimes mess you up worse. There is simply NO replacement for actual proofreading.
Example: I saw a story at one point where the author was talking about President "Back" Obama. Wait a minute... I think we're missing a syllable. So spell check would say the word was correct... And that's the problem.
Mrs. Malaprop is probably flipping her pages, going nuts for some of the things that slip by because people are relying too much on spell check. "For all the things we take for granite," READ WHAT YOU WRITE! (And that is an actual malapropism I have seen. Not the funniest, but certainly up there!)
I'm sure it often looks like I've made a mistake, but I try very hard not to do so. What's the main thing I do? I proofread like crazy!! Two, three, four times... I will proofread and proofread until I have whatever it is almost memorized! And then you know what? If I can, I have somebody ELSE look at what I've written. Why? Because fresh eyes will catch mistakes mine won't see!
I've had it happen many times, more times than I care to count, that I've written something that looks fine to me. My brain is reading whatever I wrote as correct. But someone else takes a look at it, and they find spelling issues, transposed letters, dropped letters and other mistakes. I wasn't seeing those mistakes because, as far as my brain was concerned, those mistakes didn't exist.
Even in writing this entry, I'm proofreading as I go and finding several places where I left out a word. Maybe my brain is going faster than my fingers or maybe I'm simply not actually writing the words but my brain thinks I am. How confusing can you get? That's a little confusing even for me, and it's coming from me!
A lot of the time, I'll be using a writing style that might seem a little archaic or words that aren't used everyday. That could simply be, since my mother was an English teacher, I was taught a more strict, regimented writing style. But the lackadaisical attitude I have seen from so many people when it comes to their writing, it really makes me wonder what people are being taught now.
What is the basic structure of a sentence? Subject, Verb, Object. Something does something to something. Then you get fancy and add extra clauses, adjectives, adverbs, etc. But you have to have those three elements first. THEN get fancy.
The basics do matter, especially in print-type media, which a lot of the Internet still is despite all the fancy JAVA, ASP, PHP and everything else you can use.
Even in just writing a basic paper, watch what you are writing.
Some programs do have a "grammar check" in them, but I don't trust it because it seems to underline the strangest things. However, a grammar point of contention with me is AGREEMENT. An organization, like a hospital or a single business, is an IT! That means ITS business, not THEIR business does something. The only time a writer should use their for an organization is if that writer is talking about more than one organization.
In mentioning "their," I can't help but cringe at the thought of homonyms. PAINFUL! There are so many words that sound alike but are spelled differently, and mostly mean different things. For example, probably two of the most common homonym mistakes I see involve their, they're and there or your, you're and yore (add that last one if you really want to screw with somebody's head. It has amazed me how many people don't know what that third one means).
Sometimes it's just a missed letter... Sometimes it's the completely wrong word in the given context of the specific sentence. Those details can make you, as a writer, look smart or ignorant.
Here's one for you - What are the five ways to say "ough?" "Ow" (bough), "off" (cough), "oh" (dough), "oo" (through) and "uff" (rough). This one works best if you say it aloud... Otherwise the mistake with "The dough is rising" when you say dough like cough doesn't quite make sense. My mother says this was originally in "The Reader's Digest" many years ago... Something about a recent immigrant on a subway with a bowl of dough. Don't ask me because I have no idea why in the world someone would be on a subway with a bowl of fresh dough...
There are so many potential mistakes, most of which can be caught by proofreading. It also helps to know basic written English such as how to write numbers, subject-verb agreement, subject-object agreement and so much more. To me, it seems as though English, as a written language, is dying. Otherwise, what is Ebonics?
Yes, spell or grammar check CAN help, BUT they CANNOT do it all. Like the above examples of Back Obama and taking things for granite... The words are spelled correctly, but they are incorrect in that usage! If you simply take an extra minute and reread what you have written, you'll avoid a lot of potential problems.
Learning any written form of language is hard. Being a person who is bi-lingual, I can say that and be honest. However, English is a screwy language. And while every language has its foibles, simply paying attention will help most people avoid pitfalls.
Don't rely solely on spell check or grammar check. You are your own spell check and grammar check. You, who ever you are, as a writer, should be fixing those mistakes.
Example: I saw a story at one point where the author was talking about President "Back" Obama. Wait a minute... I think we're missing a syllable. So spell check would say the word was correct... And that's the problem.
Mrs. Malaprop is probably flipping her pages, going nuts for some of the things that slip by because people are relying too much on spell check. "For all the things we take for granite," READ WHAT YOU WRITE! (And that is an actual malapropism I have seen. Not the funniest, but certainly up there!)
I'm sure it often looks like I've made a mistake, but I try very hard not to do so. What's the main thing I do? I proofread like crazy!! Two, three, four times... I will proofread and proofread until I have whatever it is almost memorized! And then you know what? If I can, I have somebody ELSE look at what I've written. Why? Because fresh eyes will catch mistakes mine won't see!
I've had it happen many times, more times than I care to count, that I've written something that looks fine to me. My brain is reading whatever I wrote as correct. But someone else takes a look at it, and they find spelling issues, transposed letters, dropped letters and other mistakes. I wasn't seeing those mistakes because, as far as my brain was concerned, those mistakes didn't exist.
Even in writing this entry, I'm proofreading as I go and finding several places where I left out a word. Maybe my brain is going faster than my fingers or maybe I'm simply not actually writing the words but my brain thinks I am. How confusing can you get? That's a little confusing even for me, and it's coming from me!
A lot of the time, I'll be using a writing style that might seem a little archaic or words that aren't used everyday. That could simply be, since my mother was an English teacher, I was taught a more strict, regimented writing style. But the lackadaisical attitude I have seen from so many people when it comes to their writing, it really makes me wonder what people are being taught now.
What is the basic structure of a sentence? Subject, Verb, Object. Something does something to something. Then you get fancy and add extra clauses, adjectives, adverbs, etc. But you have to have those three elements first. THEN get fancy.
The basics do matter, especially in print-type media, which a lot of the Internet still is despite all the fancy JAVA, ASP, PHP and everything else you can use.
Even in just writing a basic paper, watch what you are writing.
Some programs do have a "grammar check" in them, but I don't trust it because it seems to underline the strangest things. However, a grammar point of contention with me is AGREEMENT. An organization, like a hospital or a single business, is an IT! That means ITS business, not THEIR business does something. The only time a writer should use their for an organization is if that writer is talking about more than one organization.
In mentioning "their," I can't help but cringe at the thought of homonyms. PAINFUL! There are so many words that sound alike but are spelled differently, and mostly mean different things. For example, probably two of the most common homonym mistakes I see involve their, they're and there or your, you're and yore (add that last one if you really want to screw with somebody's head. It has amazed me how many people don't know what that third one means).
Sometimes it's just a missed letter... Sometimes it's the completely wrong word in the given context of the specific sentence. Those details can make you, as a writer, look smart or ignorant.
Here's one for you - What are the five ways to say "ough?" "Ow" (bough), "off" (cough), "oh" (dough), "oo" (through) and "uff" (rough). This one works best if you say it aloud... Otherwise the mistake with "The dough is rising" when you say dough like cough doesn't quite make sense. My mother says this was originally in "The Reader's Digest" many years ago... Something about a recent immigrant on a subway with a bowl of dough. Don't ask me because I have no idea why in the world someone would be on a subway with a bowl of fresh dough...
There are so many potential mistakes, most of which can be caught by proofreading. It also helps to know basic written English such as how to write numbers, subject-verb agreement, subject-object agreement and so much more. To me, it seems as though English, as a written language, is dying. Otherwise, what is Ebonics?
Yes, spell or grammar check CAN help, BUT they CANNOT do it all. Like the above examples of Back Obama and taking things for granite... The words are spelled correctly, but they are incorrect in that usage! If you simply take an extra minute and reread what you have written, you'll avoid a lot of potential problems.
Learning any written form of language is hard. Being a person who is bi-lingual, I can say that and be honest. However, English is a screwy language. And while every language has its foibles, simply paying attention will help most people avoid pitfalls.
Don't rely solely on spell check or grammar check. You are your own spell check and grammar check. You, who ever you are, as a writer, should be fixing those mistakes.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Benefit or Bane?
Facebook and Twitter, they've appeared everywhere now. People are often saying follow us or tweet us... Share with us every thing in your lives. For journalism, the question I think needs to be asked is quite simply is this trend a benefit or a bane?
For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.
I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)
People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.
Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.
You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.
Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.
Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.
Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.
Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.
Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!
So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.
I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.
For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.
I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)
People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.
Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.
You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.
Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.
Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.
Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.
Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.
Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!
So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.
I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.
Monday, March 22, 2010
And the body says... STOP!
Probably one of the really bad things about the Internet is that it never stops. It's on all day, every day. But eventually, the physical body working to maintain anything online simply has to stop. We have to eat, sleep, recharge our bodies. If we don't, we pay a heavy fine.
I'm just getting over paying that fine. Having pushed myself too far, I over-extended. And came down with pneumonia. While I have had pneumonia before, it hasn't knocked me down quite this hard before. Three days during which I could hardly breathe. Simply standing became an arduous task, almost as hard as trying to keep a constantly changing breaking news story up to date.
Thus, the long spell during which I haven't posted.
I can only hope I don't have to go on a second round of antibiotics, because keeping up with that is pretty hard when it comes to working online. It happened several times I was so occupied with my job that I forgot to take my pill... The janitor in the building got a good chuckle out of watching me dive for it one evening when I realized I was about two hours late.
So even though the Internet is constantly updating, it takes people like me to do it in many cases. But we are nothing more than people, which means we have limits. If we hit those limits and we ignore our bodies (or other aspects of our physical and mental well being), then our task must fall on other shoulders until we get back on our feet. Sometimes that recovery is quick and sometimes it isn't. I can be very glad I didn't end up in the hospital with this one, but that's no guarantee I won't someday in the future if I keep going the way I have.
In this market, simply having a job is a relief, but it also places extra stress on the people with jobs to do everything they can to keep that job and keep their bosses happy. Thus we fall victim to our own fear. The fear that we may be next, the fear we will wake up one day and be handed that pink slip, the fear that we simply aren't good enough no matter how hard we try. Even if we consciously know our jobs won't (or maybe can't) be eliminated, our unconscious minds still dwell on the "what ifs."
It takes dedicated people to keep the Internet up and running with all that information, especially on news sites. However, even the most dedicated person must eventually close the program, shut down the computer and leave the desk. Even when working from home, the Internet-based worker has to stop at some point.
Even if you are one of those that would be willing to expand your training (and I do count myself as such a one), this kind of field makes that very difficult. Between the need to keep up with daily tasks of posting and editing, trying to learn the new technology that is constantly coming out adds yet another stress to an already overloaded person.
It gets rather freaky when you start to dream of work. For example, watching text scroll across the screen (or sometimes pull a Matrix on you and be scrolling down in random-seeming columns) behind your eyelids. Even after that computer is off, you still see the screen and the slots that must be filled. It's like you never leave the computer behind, even when you burrow into your pillow. Please do not consider this a complaint. I am merely describing something that has actually happened to me. I have even overheard some of my co-workers describing strange dreams that took place at "work" while their minds and bodies were supposed to be resting.
Because of such things, rest is not restful and stress can continue to build in the subconscious. That makes our bodies weaker when it comes to staying healthy. We can try and try and try, but eventually, it will catch up and take you down. So beware. Listen to what your body has to say. If it says, "Stop," you had best listen.
I'm just getting over paying that fine. Having pushed myself too far, I over-extended. And came down with pneumonia. While I have had pneumonia before, it hasn't knocked me down quite this hard before. Three days during which I could hardly breathe. Simply standing became an arduous task, almost as hard as trying to keep a constantly changing breaking news story up to date.
Thus, the long spell during which I haven't posted.
I can only hope I don't have to go on a second round of antibiotics, because keeping up with that is pretty hard when it comes to working online. It happened several times I was so occupied with my job that I forgot to take my pill... The janitor in the building got a good chuckle out of watching me dive for it one evening when I realized I was about two hours late.
So even though the Internet is constantly updating, it takes people like me to do it in many cases. But we are nothing more than people, which means we have limits. If we hit those limits and we ignore our bodies (or other aspects of our physical and mental well being), then our task must fall on other shoulders until we get back on our feet. Sometimes that recovery is quick and sometimes it isn't. I can be very glad I didn't end up in the hospital with this one, but that's no guarantee I won't someday in the future if I keep going the way I have.
In this market, simply having a job is a relief, but it also places extra stress on the people with jobs to do everything they can to keep that job and keep their bosses happy. Thus we fall victim to our own fear. The fear that we may be next, the fear we will wake up one day and be handed that pink slip, the fear that we simply aren't good enough no matter how hard we try. Even if we consciously know our jobs won't (or maybe can't) be eliminated, our unconscious minds still dwell on the "what ifs."
It takes dedicated people to keep the Internet up and running with all that information, especially on news sites. However, even the most dedicated person must eventually close the program, shut down the computer and leave the desk. Even when working from home, the Internet-based worker has to stop at some point.
Even if you are one of those that would be willing to expand your training (and I do count myself as such a one), this kind of field makes that very difficult. Between the need to keep up with daily tasks of posting and editing, trying to learn the new technology that is constantly coming out adds yet another stress to an already overloaded person.
It gets rather freaky when you start to dream of work. For example, watching text scroll across the screen (or sometimes pull a Matrix on you and be scrolling down in random-seeming columns) behind your eyelids. Even after that computer is off, you still see the screen and the slots that must be filled. It's like you never leave the computer behind, even when you burrow into your pillow. Please do not consider this a complaint. I am merely describing something that has actually happened to me. I have even overheard some of my co-workers describing strange dreams that took place at "work" while their minds and bodies were supposed to be resting.
Because of such things, rest is not restful and stress can continue to build in the subconscious. That makes our bodies weaker when it comes to staying healthy. We can try and try and try, but eventually, it will catch up and take you down. So beware. Listen to what your body has to say. If it says, "Stop," you had best listen.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Filling in...
I sometimes can't help but feel that I didn't quite explain something correctly. For instance, I feel as though I have left something out of my earlier post, some key stone that completes a thought.
It often happens that some connection forms in my head that just doesn't translate well into the written word. So while what I think makes sense (at least to me), explaining to someone else the process and the connections in my mind just doesn't work.
For instance, anyone in journalism will probably already know that it is a very detail-orientated field, but someone outside the field might not realize just how detail orientated it is. Fact checking and accuracy are just two of the words used to describe this.
When it comes to the Internet, there are all kinds of "sources" a person can access, but how do you know the accuracy of that "information?" In some instances, you can't know. Some people will simply write whatever they want without checking to make sure their information is correct. For journalists, that could almost be counted as a crime, say libel. For an online journalist, that makes it even more difficult to make sure information is accurate and correct.
Indeed, expanding into the blogosphere makes the going even more treacherous. Because a blog is simply one person writing their thoughts, beliefs and notions, those writings do not have to be checked for accuracy. There are more blogs out there than can be counted, but most are not acceptable sources of information for a professional writer.
So usable online sources are mostly reduced to Websites produced by government agencies and known organizations (certain charities, local groups or the like).
Journalistic sources try for accuracy, but they can make mistakes. That's where a person like me comes in for I'm is supposed to catch the mistakes before they become a problem. Still, no one person can catch everything. So mistakes are bound to happen.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can, in most cases, go back into the original and make whatever changes you need. There is no real requirement to print a correction or re-air a story with a correction.
While a Website like Wikipedia may not be the best resource to use for information, it is an excellent example of just this process, because members can go in and make corrections when called for without a lot of fuss. But remember the scandal that broke a while back when Wikipedia found out some of its "contributors" were lying about their credentials and similar other activities.
The Internet has its own advantages and disadvantages, just as any information source does. Being an online journalist means I'm one of the people trying to make sure the information is correct, accurate, easy to access and more.
I'm sure I'll think of more concerning what it is to be an online journalist in the future days. And I'll write it down as it comes to me.
It often happens that some connection forms in my head that just doesn't translate well into the written word. So while what I think makes sense (at least to me), explaining to someone else the process and the connections in my mind just doesn't work.
For instance, anyone in journalism will probably already know that it is a very detail-orientated field, but someone outside the field might not realize just how detail orientated it is. Fact checking and accuracy are just two of the words used to describe this.
When it comes to the Internet, there are all kinds of "sources" a person can access, but how do you know the accuracy of that "information?" In some instances, you can't know. Some people will simply write whatever they want without checking to make sure their information is correct. For journalists, that could almost be counted as a crime, say libel. For an online journalist, that makes it even more difficult to make sure information is accurate and correct.
Indeed, expanding into the blogosphere makes the going even more treacherous. Because a blog is simply one person writing their thoughts, beliefs and notions, those writings do not have to be checked for accuracy. There are more blogs out there than can be counted, but most are not acceptable sources of information for a professional writer.
So usable online sources are mostly reduced to Websites produced by government agencies and known organizations (certain charities, local groups or the like).
Journalistic sources try for accuracy, but they can make mistakes. That's where a person like me comes in for I'm is supposed to catch the mistakes before they become a problem. Still, no one person can catch everything. So mistakes are bound to happen.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can, in most cases, go back into the original and make whatever changes you need. There is no real requirement to print a correction or re-air a story with a correction.
While a Website like Wikipedia may not be the best resource to use for information, it is an excellent example of just this process, because members can go in and make corrections when called for without a lot of fuss. But remember the scandal that broke a while back when Wikipedia found out some of its "contributors" were lying about their credentials and similar other activities.
The Internet has its own advantages and disadvantages, just as any information source does. Being an online journalist means I'm one of the people trying to make sure the information is correct, accurate, easy to access and more.
I'm sure I'll think of more concerning what it is to be an online journalist in the future days. And I'll write it down as it comes to me.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Being an online journalist
The Internet has been changing the face of journalism everywhere... Newspaper reporters might need to know how to shoot and edit video or television reporters might need to rewrite their stories for an online newspaper. People like me have to know some web design, Internet language, text editing skills and more just so we can put content online where people can see it. The University of Missouri School of Journalism (from which I got my degree) even created an entirely new department just to help reporters be able to cross media: Convergence Journalism.
You might ask, "What is Convergence Journalism?" I'm sure other people out there will have a slightly different idea of what it is, but for me, Convergence Journalism is taking aspects of newspaper, magazine, photography, television and radio journalism, and combining them all online.
However, there's a twist... The Internet has changed dramatically since news outlets first started posting content. It still is changing and will continue to do so. New programs, new languages, new design options, all these make it very hard to keep up. It seems that no matter what skills I learned, parts of them are outdated within months. I could probably study new online skills 24 hours a day and still not be able to keep up.
It often seems the same for computer technology. Hello! Anybody been paying attention to how many new OSs have come out in the last few years? At least businesses aren't investing in the new technology as soon as it comes out! So there I can at least continue to do my job with most of it...
This is not an easy field. It never has been. The hours are long; the mental strain sometimes overwhelms; news never stops. The Internet is just taking that further because people can connect 24/7/365. It might be an overload, and it might not. Still, as long as there is a demand, there will have to be people, like me, to fill it.
Here is something you might find interesting, even though it's a little outdated now... Epic 2015. It's a very interesting take on how technology has changed media...
You might ask, "What is Convergence Journalism?" I'm sure other people out there will have a slightly different idea of what it is, but for me, Convergence Journalism is taking aspects of newspaper, magazine, photography, television and radio journalism, and combining them all online.
However, there's a twist... The Internet has changed dramatically since news outlets first started posting content. It still is changing and will continue to do so. New programs, new languages, new design options, all these make it very hard to keep up. It seems that no matter what skills I learned, parts of them are outdated within months. I could probably study new online skills 24 hours a day and still not be able to keep up.
It often seems the same for computer technology. Hello! Anybody been paying attention to how many new OSs have come out in the last few years? At least businesses aren't investing in the new technology as soon as it comes out! So there I can at least continue to do my job with most of it...
This is not an easy field. It never has been. The hours are long; the mental strain sometimes overwhelms; news never stops. The Internet is just taking that further because people can connect 24/7/365. It might be an overload, and it might not. Still, as long as there is a demand, there will have to be people, like me, to fill it.
Here is something you might find interesting, even though it's a little outdated now... Epic 2015. It's a very interesting take on how technology has changed media...
Introduction
In the field of journalism, words are life and being able to play with those words, mold them for various uses, is a handy skill. The phrase, Journaliste Sagace, is actually a play on words that crosses three languages. Journaliste is the easy part. It’s the French word for journalist; what I am. Sagace is also a French word. This one means sagacious or wise. That is what my name, Klug, means in German. In other words, it’s who I am. It’s just a little twist of the tongue, one of those clever puzzles that can be solved with the right code. I am Sharra Klug and I am the Journaliste Sagace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
