Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.
Netiquette and vintage photos | Links of the day (so far)
- This tweet is yet another reason why I love Esquire’s Twitter feed. Esquire has one of the most well-defined editorial voices out there–even on the Twitters and even when talking about a topic that, at most magazines, no one except the copyeditors would think about.
- Captivating color photography of America from 1939-1943. Looking at these–and seeing how color photography really makes a time I’ve only seen in black and white truly come alive–makes me appreciate how innovative and magical color photography must have been when it became accessible to consumers (but before it became ubiquitious). Further viewing: Russia, in color, a century ago. (Hat tip: @isoughtajam)
- Late addition (1:46 pm): Elizabeth Spiers on some of the many self-defeating beliefs held by traditional media companies. So true.
E-readers, tablets, and the future of print
This article explains roughly why I think digital publishing is the future of print:
There’s a lot of angst in the book publishing industry — and among book lovers — about the rise of the e-book and the decline of the printed version, but there’s good news for those who care about books regardless of what form they take: A growing body of evidence shows that people with e-readers are reading more books. (from GigaOM)
Yet, it also explains why magazine publishers probably will take a lot longer to embrace digital: there is empirical evidence that they should do it and do it now. Seriously, what is it about publishers that they don’t make changes that are nearly guaranteed to save their industry?
Multi-channel publishing versus (perceived) print traditionalists
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.
Reporting on a Scarcity of Reporting Without Reporting – Media Decoder Blog – NYTimes.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.
Ethics, objectivity, free rides, and shooting oneself in the foot
Recently, Harvard Business School professor Mary Tripsas was fired from her column in the New York Times for accepting an all-expenses paid trip to 3M’s customer innovation center, then writing about it in a favorable light without disclosing to her editor who paid for the trip.
Many of the blogs commenting on it seem to focus on how ridiculous the Times’s standards are, how the piece was a puff piece, etc. They’re missing the main point. As public editor Clark Hoyt discusses in his column, Tripsas and others clearly violated the terms of their contracts. It’s appalling how frequently this happens.
I have a great deal of sympathy for freelancers who are trying to meet the obligations of contracts for an array of publications. Few are easy to read and decipher. Most are unnecessarily long and filled with legal jargon. However, keeping all the contract requirements from different publications straight is one of the responsibilities of a freelancer. Many freelancers feign ignorance or actively flout the contract rules simply because they know that the worst that will happen is that the publication won’t use them again.*
But this is a legally binding contract. Just this last year, I had a writer sell parts of a story that my magazine paid for (and paid travel and other expenses for) to two other publications–or at least, two others that I found. Wait, no. Three other publications. We bought exclusive worldwide rights for the first four months after publication in our magazine. I will never hire that writer again.
The Runner’s World/Newsweek/Sarah Palin photo shoot situation is another version of this same issue. You think that you get what you pay for. Except when the person who you pay decides to ignore the terms of the payment.
Once a writer signs a contract, he or she has agreed to the rules of the game. If you don’t like the rules, don’t sign the contract, or at least discuss it with your editor. (Often, there is some leeway.) Though some of the writers Hoyt mentions felt squeamish or had concerns, none of them actually discussed these concerns with their editor.
*There are many reasons for this. First off, legal battles are expensive and neither publications nor freelancers have much cash to spare. Second, a publication that sues its writers is going to have a far more difficult time finding writers. But as publishers shed titles on an almost weekly basis, these writers are putting short-term gains in front of long-term potential. Editors continue working with reliable, ethical writers.
The slippery task of defining words
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.
Good on “Suffixes of Doom”
Apparently we’ve moved on (and up?) from “-gate” to the far more hyperbolic “-geddon” and “-pocalypse.” One added benefit: these form even more awkward constructions, highlighting the use of the newly coined word and bringing more attention to the gloomy drama-queen aspect of the use.
Link: Wordgeddon | GOOD.
Why the world needs multilingual editors
Sometimes you need a human to prevent what looks like human error.
France: Automatic translation of La Tribune site garbles the news – Editors Weblog.
Language Log » Beneath the footsteps of commas
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.