Blogging Lite

Blogging will be lighter than usual this week as Flea has the chicken pox. Or, as she put it this morning: "I have the evil lurgy"

So, here's a digest of what I would have blogged about this week, if I had time:

- Chris Brogan has unearthed a corporate Twitter application - using it as a customer service channel. Richard Millington talks about something similar here. I'd love to see more stuff like this - but still find myself overwhelmed by Twitter's volume.

- I have a knack for spotting typos in (other people's) copy. I often annoy other journalists by emailing them pointing out typos in their websites or blogs. But I don't think I've ever written to a magazine or newspaper to criticise mistakes in their magazines. But someone did this to Chris at All Points North - and he's not very happy about it. I think Wordsmith would disagree, though.

- Wordsmith is also a fan of the Churnalist Prize - yet another smug, anonymous blog that's naming, shaming and lampooning journalists who produce stories using wire copy or press releases verbatim. It's not great journalism, and it's not to be admired but I can't bring myself to buy into anonymous bloggers taking pot-shots at colleagues and thinking they're oh-so-clever in the process. In fact, I can't even be arsed to give them the linky-love. I'm sure you'll Google them if you're interested.

- Just got back from a trip to Milan where I met with journalist colleagues from Russia, Germany, Italy and the US. Seems the trade press is having a horrible time everywhere, except Russia. But all the journalists round the table agreed that blogging was having a real impact on print publications. As one German hack from a well-regarded newspaper said: "Since blogging, everyone thinks they can write. And they're doing it for free. So I end up spending longer editing their copy into something usable than it would take me to write it from scratch." Which makes me wonder - how many bloggers can actually write? Does it matter? Can you tell the difference? Who do we think are the best writers - and are they the same as the best bloggers? 

More next week when the lurgy have retreated, I hope.

Comments

[Chris Brennan]

I should point out that I have no problem at all with people highlighting mistakes in the publication; it makes us all better at our jobs. In this instance it was a relentless attack, implying that we didn’t care and lacked the ability to do our jobs. Obviously my post is a bit tongue in cheek and over the top but I’ve had conversations with people who’ve no experience of putting anything but themselves to bed and think going to press is a simple as pressing print.
We strive to be 100% error free but I’ll take 99%. Perhaps this makes me a poor editor in some eyes but I’m not going to lose sleep over an errant comma. I think anyone who says they *always* send out their publication with no errors *whatsoever* is being economical with the truth, working on a two page title with a six month lead time or very, very lucky. I’m sure there’s a host of people who do work in the industry who think that’s crazy talk and I should be ashamed for being so laid back about it. I respect that viewpoint I just don’t agree with it. Mistakes are an inevitable part of every aspect of life and an its without an apostrophe is not conclusive proof that the writer is a moron. Nor does a missed full stop mean that the production editor isn’t good at what they do

I shall dismount from my high horse now and go back to checking all the its one more time. This job would be great if it wasn't for the bloody readers...

[th]

Sorry to disappoint but in this case, Chris is right. Having subbed mags myself, I concur that it's impossible to produce a publication that is 100% error-free! I aim for 100% every time. But 99% accuracy is something to be proud of. Nitpicking readers are indeed a pain. I should know - I'm one myself. But I've yet to succumb to writing complaint letters in green ink about this issue myself because I know how peed off I'd be, should I find myself on the receiving end...

[The Wordsmith]

Above comment was from me. Not sure how I managed to mangle my sig...

[Sally]

Haha.

Lack of proofing before publishing. It's a shame how people just don't take standards seriously any more, isn't it? ;-)

[Kim]

I think there are quite a few "proper" journalists who rely on good subs, don't you? Have just been musing on the subject this week, as the Times Alpha Mummy blog has a post from a senior Times journalist headed: "Damn the teacher's strike".

Posts on The Times blogs clearly don't go through the subs first. But it made me wonder why The Times, a paper with a world-class reputation, lets its writers publish stuff straight to the blog without any quality control. Presumably the idea is that blogs are informal and not part of the real paper, but it's obvious from comments on the blog that a lot of people don't make the distinction. Same on The Guardian's Comment is Free.

[Rob Ashwell]

Yes, there are mistakes. As a PR I can afford the luxury of looser deadlines and a host of subs (account execs etc) to spot the mistakes.

PRs also have to have perfect copy because we're so often peddling such cr*p that any typo will leave it in the bin. If it was a good story that wasn't sent out by spam mail I'm sure journalists would tolerate a typo or two in our copy too.

But ultimately it's amazing that there are so few typos in The Times / Telegraph etc. and yes, even in the Grauniad. Get it done, don't get it perfect is a good motto.

I know what I'd rather see - a strong piece that has been researched well yet contains a typo or a press release reprint.

[Anne]

I've fielded a few phone calls from readers pointing out typos in my time. What are you supposed to say? "Wow, thank you so much for pointing out that that apostrophe was in the wrong place. Here, have a medal. Thanks for making me realise I'm just not doing my job properly. I'm off to slap myself for being so rubbish. Congratulations on being so smug, well done, it really was a worthwhile use of your time."

The ones who chortle with the hilarity of it all are worse than the ones who sound indignant, I think.

My local water company has just started sending out a customer magazine. In issue 2, they printed a letter from someone pointing out a typo ("Peninsular" instead of "Peninsula") and I was surprised to see they had printed it, with a "Well spotted, sorry about that."

As for the Churnalist Prize, which I'm now off to google, for all anyone knows those journos may have been told to produce said story from said wire copy/press release in 5 minutes flat by an editor.

[The Wordsmith]

Try googling Churner Prize - you'll probably find said blog a lot quicker...

[Sally Whittle]

Thanks Wordsmith - I note you're listed on the site, and a big supporter. Hmm.

I think the anonymity bothers me more than anything - I can respect anyone's opinion, even if I disagree with it, if it's honestly made and openly expressed. But this smug, sneaky, bullying type of blog just sickens me, it really does.

[The Wordsmith]

I see it more as an amusing record of what's being churned. The anonymity doesn't bother me. I dare say the Churner Prize listers have been forced to churn stories themselves on occasion - we all know papers these days have fewer staff and smaller budgets, meaning it's hard for hacks to get out there and uncover new news. And maybe, just maybe they have their own jobs to protect. I wouldn't say I'm a BIG supporter, but I do follow what they are up to. I suspect I got blogrolled because I blogged about them a few weeks back.