Monday, November 2, 2009

But some stinkin' rules we don't need!

To find out why these "rules" are (some broadly, some less so) bogus, go to the About.com blog post and click on the links there.

Never begin a sentence with the conjunction and or but.

Never end a sentence with a preposition.

Never split an infinitive.

Never use the passive voice.

Never use contractions.
But you don't want to break these rules in all situations you write in.

- JRO

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Paying respect to the perspective of Frank McCourt

When the author of Angela's Ashes, a Pulitzer Prize winner, published that book, he was in well into his 60's. It was his first published book. That gives encouragement to any writer who is not in their teens or twenties. Here's a collection of Frank McCourt's thoughts about writing. And teaching. This is not the whole collection, just a taste. Hit the link to read the whole thing.

These were compiled for the About.com blog, Grammar and Composition, by Richard Nordquist. (If you are a writer or language person of any type, I highly recommend that blog.)

Remembering Frank McCourt, "Teacher Man"
Here are a few ... observations on writing and the teaching of writing.

The Magic of Writing:
I always wanted to write because for me it was magic to get a piece of paper and put words on it. As I'm always saying, to put together words that were never before put together by anybody. To take two words that were never joined together like a "scintillating turnip." I would put words together like that just to keep the language fresh.
(Frank McCourt Interview, The Academy of Achievement, June 19, 1999)

Finding His Voice in Angela's Ashes:
After 20 pages of standard omniscient author, I wrote something that I thought was just a note to myself, about sitting on a seesaw in a playground, and I found my voice, the voice of a child. That was it. It carried me through to the end of the book.
(quoted in The Providence Journal, 1997)

Teaching and Learning:
You can teach biology and origami and how to skin a rabbit but I don't think you can teach creative writing. You can hint and nudge and inspire and encourage. You can help aspiring writers in their search for their material, their style. . . . What I learned, most of all, was that if you're teaching and not learning then you're not teaching, and if you don't enjoy yourself in the classroom, you might as well be driving a taxi.
(Frank McCourt, "Reflections on Creative Writing Class," The New York Times, April 14, 2002)

Follow Your Bliss:
I found out eventually why I was put on this earth. I was put on this earth to write. And as Thomas Carlyle said, "Happy is the man who has found his work." So I'm happy, and I hope everybody else finds that, too.
(Frank McCourt Interview, The Academy of Achievement, June 19, 1999)

- JRO



Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Writing: one space or two between sentences? One works!

Chicago Style Q&A: One Space or Two?

In our efficient, modern world, I think there is no room for two spaces after a period. In the opinion of this particular copyeditor, this is a good thing.

I have been writing and page designing on a computer, professionally, since 1992. Two spaces has never been the norm for computer-based journalism, or commercial printing or publishing, since desktop publishing became the norm in the early 1990s, and I think the extra space should have gone away with the end of typewriters as the dominant writing machine.

In my long-considered view from 16 years of writing everything from letters to articles to blog rants, what's proper -- one space or two -- is what suits the ultimate medium, not simply the preference of the writer.

If you are writing a letter, the option is yours, completely. Use three spaces, if you can't help yourself. But writing very often comes with a set of requirements outside of personal letters. If someone asks me to include two spaces, I'll have to go in and add them. As a typesetter/page designer/writer/editor, two spaces drives me a bit crazy since on computer and on the page it is, to me, a waste of space just as wordiness in a sentence. It is "real estate" needlessly used on a page that costs money to produce, print and distribute (yes, even as minute as one can think the spaces might be, it's needless anymore).

In publishing and commercial printing, I have never, ever heard anyone request materials be provided using two spaces (not that that means it doesn't happen). Since desktop publishing came into being, in writing for professional publishing or written material, single spaces after periods that end sentences has been the rule. This is how I have always known it, for 16 years beyond my college years, and in college, too (I was a college journalist).

Granted, MLA style (which is not for broad publishing, I have to stress, but for academic work) leaves it a bit open. However, I get agreement from the MLA, although it seems to be grudgingly, with regards to professional writing for publication.

See the link, at top, for Chicago Manual of Style Q&A on it. "The view at CMOS is that there is no reason for two spaces after a period in published work. Some people, however -- my colleagues included -- prefer it, relegating this preference to their personal correspondence and notes."

Then there's the AP style and New York Times style, both of which, I strongly suspect, would agree (I have used AP, but don't have a style book here). My favorite little common usage guide, Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, is created with single spaces between sentences, even in it's usage examples, so that answers, from that. Any others? Can't recall. Comment here on others, if you have recommendations, or write vikingjro-at-gmail-dot-com.

I think using just one space makes life simpler. I believe that two spaces used between sentences ought to have gone away with the end of common typewriter usage.

- Jon O.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Kudos for customizable, simple iGoogle

I like iGoogle.

I didn't even like Google initially, because when I searched for my own stuff, it didn't seem to pop up on Google. My stuff did show up, and much higher on the listings, on Yahoo! (dilemma: do you put a period or other punctuation after the exclamation point in the name of the company "Yahoo!" or get creative to avoid it altogether with something like a parenthetical distraction?).

Thanks to Google News, which I like and have customized, and then iGoogle, Google eventually won me over (and of course I use Blogger and I use Gmail, too).

However, when I search, I typically like to search using Ask.com, and thanks to Firefox's customized search bar, this is easy. I like the extra categories it throws at me on the sidebar of the window. Call me research addicted, I'll not argue it.

iGoogle is not bogged down with CPU-straining, attention-draining graphic elements keeping wheels and progress bars reeling to load the background and the foreground of the page. By the way, I avoid the Ask.com home page, since it is graphically busy, by opting for the Firefox search bar I mentioned earlier.

iGoogle is not like many news sites and other graphics-heavy sites people choose for home pages, those others frustrating anyone without a 6-foot Ethernet cord directly patched into their ISP's broadband hub. (And that would be everyone, really.)

My iGoogle page is pretty busy: Google News (my former home page, with highly personalized news blocks) and several other news gadgets are on there, the Daily Beast Cheat Sheet (which is far better, to me, via iGoogle rather than as a home page, which it was for me for a brief time), and Gmail, Blogger, Twitter and many news gadgets/widgets/thingies -- whatever you wish to call the modules you can add to your iGoogle page.

iGoogle is well worth consideration as a quick-loading, easygoing home page, a perfect jumping off point. Well done, simple: and why not? Not everything needs to look like -- and take up the computing power of -- the Action Video Game of the Year, does it?


- Jon O.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Almost perfect proofreading: About.com's grammar guy

I have enjoyed About.com's grammar guy, Richard Nordquist, for several years. I might go months without reading anything from him, I admit, but I get his email newsletter, and his Grammar & Composition Blog on About.com is part of my iGoogle page. It sits there, in a clean little rounded-edge box, with lots of other stuff. I manage to remember it is there, now and then.

His work is generally pleasant and realistic, and he often provides handy ideas such as this:

Ten Tips for Almost Perfect Proofreading
... there's no foolproof formula for perfect proofreading every time. It's just too tempting to see what we intended to write rather than the words that actually appear on the page or screen. Still, the goal of perfection is worth pursuing, and in that spirit I offer these 10 tips to help you see (or hear) your errors before anybody else does.

1. Give it a rest.
If time allows, set your text aside for a few hours (or days) after you've finished composing, and then proofread it with fresh eyes. Rather than remember the perfect paper you meant to write, you're more likely to see what you've actually written.

2. Look for one type of problem at a time.
Read through your text several times, concentrating first on sentence structures, then word choice, then spelling, and finally punctuation. As the saying goes, if you look for trouble, you're likely to find it.

3. Double-check facts, figures, and proper names.
In addition to reviewing for correct spelling and usage, make sure that all the information in your text is accurate.

4. Review a hard copy.
Print out your text and review it line by line: rereading your work in a different format may help you catch errors that you previously missed.

5. Read your text aloud.
Or better yet, ask a friend or colleague to read it aloud. You may hear a problem (a faulty verb ending, for example, or a missing word) that you haven't been able to see.

6. Use a spell checker.
The spell checker can help you catch repeated words, reversed letters (langauge is my favorite), and many other common errors--but it's certainly not goofproof.

7. Trust your dictionary.
Your spell checker can tell you only if a word is a word, not if it's the right word. For instance, if you're not sure whether sand is in a desert or a dessert, visit the dictionary (or our Glossary of Commonly Confused Words).

8. Read your text backward.
Another way to catch spelling errors is to read backward, from right to left, starting with the last word in your text. Doing this will help you focus on individual words rather than sentences.

9. Create your own proofreading checklist.
Keep a list of the types of mistakes you commonly make, and then refer to that list each time you proofread.

10. Ask for help.
Invite someone else to review your text. As I found out the hard way, a new set of eyes may immediately spot errors that you've overlooked.

How do you know if you take writing seriously? At some point, you've actually used all of these above -- that's a convincing start. I would certainly forgive someone of not proofing a 300-page book line-by-line backward (#8), but it's a good idea for a letter, report or article.

Writing well is hard work, when it comes down to it. Writing well is a challenge: some find that challenge always maddening, others enjoy it for some twisted reason.

It is not the domain of quick-send online commenting and blogging. In case you were wondering.


Not that a quik blog psot isn't the prefect right of descent writers and editors and everone esle! :-)



- Jon O.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, March 2, 2009

New business launches in the time of deep and eery recessions

I noted in the post "Top 10 reasons to start..." (below this one) that the impact of a bad economy can adversely affect one's good health. I found it affecting mine, seeking out and reviewing too much information about the current strife, what horrible errors -- scams, regulations, and more -- brought us here. I strive to not go blaming it on one person or group or any persuasion, too, so it gets ugly listening or reading much of what's out there (including my own thoughts on the situation).

Starting a business now could be a very welcome distraction for many, if one found like-minded, driven people to get it going.

Shutters may be going up, but not a lot of them, not right now.
That could change in six months, or a year. I believe, sternly, that many opportunities arising right now are suitable to the "mother of invention" adage. This as others are coming down. I have had my own idea about a concept for other businesses, not for a standalone company, while I might have to pursue that direction for it. It is an idea that suits the time, but is no huge moneymaker, just a good idea for helping folks when they need a job.

Just today (this morning), driving a regular road pattern of mine, I noticed the second of three small car sales businesses at a large intersection closing up. Literally: there was a guy at the gate to the property, pulling closed the gate on a big, empty slab of asphalt. That company had only just opened up some time in 2008. Adjacent to that used dealership was another, long there, which was now empty. Happily, a third which always seemed to have very clean, very current or well taken care of vehicles, was seemingly very much in business.

My wife works for a married couple who just started a small business. They are so dedicated to the task, as is my wife and the other employees, that they cannot help but succeed (the particular field is a good one, for one thing, for good or bad times). It comes from their dedication, though: that stuff rolls from the top, as they say. A company will never fail from the bottom up! An important (evasively obvious?) lesson, for anyone wanting to start a news business: you better love it! If you don't, then you might not want to bother. If you do not love the field in which you want to start a company, then you will perhaps succeed, but just how miserable do you want to be? The hardest thing to do everyday is to work at making a business succeed if you are unhappy, painfully disinterested, or just plain miserable everyday doing it.

The prospect of starting a new business has long appealed to me. I had a hand in startups and very small companies on about five or six occasions. I ran, partly managed, or otherwise helped launch three media companies, from 1997 to 2002. I moved in 2003 from the area where two of those companies are still in business, to follow my career wish to stay in news media. As I've covered on this blog, an ownership and management shuffle led me out of the last startup company, a daily paper (it was a tough time, too, in the industry -- among the great many things it changed, permanently and briefly, Sept. 11 steeply lowered ad dollars in 2001-02). After a while, staying in news media proved contrary to my fate.

In 2005, after a stint in graphics and computer services, I became a tech writer and proposals writer. The work was quite unlike news design and journalism, but it paid much better and I found myself to be very well suited to it.

Those exciting and challenging days of startups are fond memories in lots of ways. As with anything, there are caveats. As I opined long ago (1992): "Some people rise to an occasion, others just show up." (That's mine: you can use it with attribution. Grin.) So long as folks are in it to work hard and do things appropriately, strive to avoid, briefly, an "amateurism trumps accuracy" attitude, startups can always succeed, both in appearances and on the all-important financial records. Most of all, the people running the thing have got to love the work, and the more those working for them, WITH them, also love it, the better the likelihood for success.

- Jon O.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Top 10 reasons to start starting now

Top 10 Reasons to Start Up in the Recession - Starting a business in a recession - Entrepreneur.com
Regardless of what people around you (including the media) may say, right now is the best time to get into business Just go back and look at the economic slowdowns throughout history. Most recessions in the post-World War II era last an average of 10 months, followed by growth cycles that last an average of 50 months.

What this means for the startup is there's no better time than right now to get going and start pursuing your business dreams--in anticipation of the next period of growth.
  1. Everything is cheaper.
  2. You can hire more and better-qualified people.
  3. People are looking to change suppliers.
  4. Ownership equals tax incentives.
  5. Family and friends don't want to (or can't) invest more money into the stock or real estate markets.
  6. Suppliers are giving better credit.
  7. You can get good PR by showing you are going against the trend.
  8. You can buy everything you need at auction.
  9. You can find great "low money" or "no money" down deals.
And the last...
10.  You've lost your job, and you have to do something.
See the piece (link is above) for the details behind the ten reasons.

Being young enough to have been alive but missed, consciously, the inflation, stagflation and recession waves of the 1970s and early 1980s, this "hard" recession is uncharted territory for me. Having a pretty good understanding of business trends, social trends (ones that truly matter, not just pop music, etc.), and the value of confidence and daring (legal, rational and logical daring, I should emphasize, not magic-trick-style derivative or subprime daring) in the growth of a capitalist economy, this is a tough time for me to dig too deeply into the details of it. It is affecting my state of mind and health! So: no, thanks, that's enough of that for now.

For my active imagination, this rugged recession is at times creepy. Visions of just how bad things could be turn fairly epic and dark at times, for me. Right now is tough for me, in that I am looking for work, while my wife, thankfully, is employed. Having a good sense of business and economic confidence, this little adventure has left me with more than a few days of awe -- and not in a good way.

Thanks to the incessant reminders from President Obama, and many others, that this is the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, my sensitive and creative side invents high-tech versions of Dust Bowl images, Prohibition Chicago crime spree impressions, and other modern-times versions of Great Depression visions of what the next year could bring.

To avoid the risks of stomach problems I don't need, I pass on the gloominess of business-related news and chatter for lighter fare, such as goofy FM talk radio, and avoiding sustaining the details of the evasive rhetoric being sold from the White House, Congress, TV and written (print and online) media, conservative radio, and all else. Make no mistake about it that I am aware of what is going on, but I am intentionally not dwelling on it, since it will only make things worse for an "imaginative realist" such as me.

So I am avoiding the details of what the future yet promises to destroy in the economy (you see my lamenting tone there), and hope that rational thinking in bad times will win out. Eventually.

Paying too much attention to this stuff could be bad for your health. While good times often turn the practical into the targets of practical jokers, bad times will make heroes out of those who believe in rational business practices, not absurdly creative financial dealings (like those that can only succeed while good times prevail, but offer no "out" for when bad times strike us). Focusing on something like starting a new business could be just what the doctor -- or your sanity, at least -- ordered.


- Jon O



Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Webb: the printing industry -- media and marketing -- will see drop, even after recession ends

Where will the printing business -- which is still part of the media business, believe it or not -- be, when we come to the end of this current economic low phase?

The author is Dr. Joe Webb, not exactly a bringer of good news for printing, but highly informed (read his profile). He offers his thoughts from a site he helped get rolling, WhatTheyThink.com. From my perspective in a variety of parts of the industry, I do not suspect he's far off. I didn't need a big sign to tell me that news media, in the particular ways that I worked in it, was a low-benefit and high-aggravation situation. My various experiences in print media as a whole include major printing companies, news media, marketing and multimedia, business creative, printing services, and technical documentation (recently).

WhatTheyThink Economics & Research Center - Printing Industry Economics, Trends and Research
After all these years, however, there is still the expectation that when the economy turns around that the printing industry will turn around, too. Sorry. That assumption can't be made. Commercial printing shipments, on an inflation-adjusted basis, have been down for seven consecutive quarters, and this current quarter will only make that eight. That's twice as long as the general economic recession. While the economy was growing, we went through a period of 15 consecutive negative quarters a couple of years ago.

Another idea that should be set aside is that that after recession, whenever that is, we will return to "business as usual." I don't know what that means. In practical terms, there really is no such thing. It's important to have fantasies, but this should not be one of them.

The printing industry will be vastly different after the recession ends than it was going into it. This industry always changes, especially in recessions. Unlike those of the late 1970s and early 1980s, and also the 1991 recession, there is no technological change working in our favor that is reducing the total costs of print or expanding the potential market for it. We went through the launch of digital prepress in a recession.
Digital is taking a massive hit on printing companies, just as it is on print news companies, who need to start considering just what they can do to more greatly impact their piece of the digital market. Printing will never die, since one cannot make a paper plane out of a smartphone (yet). But that's about it, it seems!
Last week, Marriott Corporation announced that in its first 100 days of making room reservations available using mobile devices (such as iPhones) it had booked $1.25 million in reservations. We already know that Dell Computer had attributed $1 million in orders over 18 months over Twitter. The company has more than 12,000 Twitter followers and offers them exclusive discounts. Mobile marketing will only be bigger when the recession is over.

The other day, Hearst's legendary publisher Cathie Black said that magazines would start thriving again. She said that's what happened after 1991, and it will happen again. Sorry. Magazine circulation has been flat for nearly 20 years, through booms and busts, even though one would expect that population growth alone (just under +1% per year) would keep a floor under the business. Magazines are in deep trouble.
A lot has changed since I first got into the news business.
Just consider what has changed since 1991, the last real recession we had (and even then it was mild compared to 1981-1982). There was no consumer-driven Internet. There was no Facebook. There was no iPod. There were no e-books. There was really no e-mail. There were no online PDFs. There was no XML. There was no Twitter. No Google. No YouTube. There was no instant messaging. Cell phones were bulky, and they were just phones. There were no worthwhile PDAs. The Mac was seven years old. Windows barely worked.
With regards to Windows -- touche! (If you used Windows in 1991, you might be diluted or forgetful if you think it worked like anything worth bragging about. Windows' weaknesses, not its strengths -- mostly its tie to DOS, thus business operations, via aggressive package sales and marketing -- is what the IT industry seems to have been built upon.)
All of this leads to this essential question: What will the post-recession successful print business look like?

First, it is print process agnostic. That is, it reflects the growing perception among buyers that selection of the print process is no longer critical except in process-exclusive situations. Offset or digital, buyers will consider the selected process as meaningless in their overall decision. Recommending a certain print process over another will become less important, often viewed as complicating a decision unnecessarily.
Keep reading, as he goes on from there. And his three main points run up to this:
Those companies focused only on survival will not make the transition. They are only interested in figuring out how to buy time for themselves using their current business methods, equipment, and ideas. Getting past "survival-only thinking" requires a vision of what clients will need three and five years from now. That's risky because the clients don't even know what that is. That's what the entrepreneurism we need is all about: leadership and creativity.
Being obsessed with survival alone prevents a company from being forward-looking and proactive and can kill the optimism of employees and management. Reposition and restructure the print business now; get out of survival mode as quickly as possible. Obsessing over survival alone is counterproductive and is a sign of larger problems.

- Jon O



Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Vonnegut offers some simple thoughts on writing style


Kurt Vonnegut on Writing With Style - Vonnegut on Style
[Vonnegut] offers seven deceptively simple principles:

* Find a subject you care about.
* Do not ramble, though.
* Keep it simple.
* Have the guts to cut.
* Sound like yourself.
* Say what you mean to say.
* Pity the readers.

Pity our readers? Vonnegut goes on to explain that our "audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify--whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales. That is the bad news."
"The good news," Vonnegut continues, "is that we Americans are governed under a unique Constitution, which allows us to write whatever we please without fear of punishment. So the most meaningful aspect of our styles, which is what we choose to write about, is utterly unlimited."
These days, About is a massive collection of what we now refer to as blogs. It is one of the originals, I think. If you enjoy writing, aspire to write, teach writing or have any interest in writing, the About.com section on Writing -- Grammar & Composition -- with Richard
Nordquist
is an easy bit of usefulness and some encouraging, quote-filled lessons on a wide variety of things.


- Jon O.

Powered by ScribeFire.

News reporting might be thinning, but alternate writing/comm gigs are out there

I discovered a dedicated and active technical communications writer via Twitter, and recently have been reading his blog. He's a believer in lots of education and finding the options that are out there for writers. I realized just how good technical writing is when I got my first job in it. I'd been a graphic designer, helped launch a few small media companies, been and editor, writer, and dabbled in broadcast video before I took my first contract as a technical writer.

Not only is it a worthy line of work, quite suitable to someone who can do research, appreciate details, and write, but it pays better than journalism can, generally. This blog offers some solid  ideas and supports for a career in technical writing.  He struck me recently with this entry, which I could relate to in a varfiety of ways, being a recovering journalist.

Career Stuck In Neutral? Move Sideways To Find A Related But Different Job | Technical Communication Center
You know you need to get out journalism business fast. But you have no idea what to do next.

At that point a friend suggests you give bartending a try.

“Why not?” he says, “it’s an easy and fun thing to do. You get to meet a lot of interesting people and you also make a hundred dollars a night on tips alone.”

You figure you can make three or four thousand dollars a month easy and you are tempted to say “yes.” But should you? I think not.

The chances are you are a bookish person, more comfortable in a library than in a sour-smelling smoky noisy night club. There is a great chance that you won’t be able to handle the pressure of running a busy bar, making constant small talk to keep the inebriated customers happy, keeping up with different orders correctly, and managing the cash register, all at the same time.

You’d be totally out of your comfort zone.
He offers a list of areas of work one could enter if journalistic writing has come and gone as a beneficial career, he notes. He includes, as a sidebar, a humorous example of a news guy who became the "communications director" for, of all things, a strip club. Bottom line:
Sometimes moving sideways is the smoothest way to push forward.
Check out the blog, by Ugur Akinci, Ph.D., at technicalcommunicationcenter.com.


- Jon O.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

DTV: Switching is more than a cheap or poor person's thing


Forbes, with its usual flair for citing the esoteric yet obvious (that is a compliment), with a Dec. 2008 piece offers insight into the digital TV switch that is an excellent tidy stack of chunks of good information. (Why can't TIME, Newsweek, TV Guide, EW, Fortune, People -- are you getting the drift? -- CNET, and so many other media outlets do half as good at spelling it out, FULLY, as Forbes does here? Maybe they did -- I didn't see it, I confess, I saw this sparkling example of good informative journalism, and I like it.) You ought to check it out, even if you have the vaguest of interest in getting a converter box, or dropping cable or satellite as an expense-reducing maneuver.

Surviving The Switch To Digital TV - Forbes.com
What the digital switchover is actually doing is changing the language that TV broadcasters use to communicate with your television. Since 1941, televisions in the U.S. have utilized a set of broadcast standards laid out by the National Television System Committee. Big broadcast towers sent out information over the air using these NTSC standards and were picked up by the television antenna in your living room. Inside your TV, an NTSC tuner interpreted the information and properly displayed it on screen.
The author, Michael Patrick Brady, brings up the often overlooked, at least unspoken, logic, behind any family dumping cable and satellite. As an admitted TV addict trying to recover from it, the thoughts are something I can appreciate.
With the emergence of free, digital, over-the-air television that includes HD transmissions, it will be interesting to see if Americans, the majority of whom now pay for their television service via cable or satellite, might see the benefit of switching back to the old rabbit ears. While the selection of over-the-air broadcasts will never be as comprehensive as pay services, that same glut of content is often cited as an annoyance--lots of channels that subscribers will never watch.

Most people would save from $600 to $1400 per year by dropping the 80 to 400-plus channels, most of which they have never watched for more than ten minutes, and could put that money to good use. Putting that money into some sort of savings, say, for the kid's or kids' college fund, would offer you far mroe than an addiction to cable or satellite TV is doing for your family. I love TV, but I love eating, too -- I know when to stop both, sorta. Especially right now, with the economy tanked, you could borrow DVDs from the library, or rent them, or frequent freebie and/or paid online movie and TV sites. Or, if you are a collector, buy the movies and documentaries and TV shows they really like and, God forbid, see films in theaters (for $12.00 a ticket -- is it? -- and sacrificing their child's college education for popcorn, candy and soda).

Besides, when 24-hour news channels, unless you catch a worthy special report, are often as useless as trying to study a textbook by staring at its cover, it seems to me there better things one could do with their time. Heck, that money you save could go toward charities, if you're so responsibly inclined.

Charities could use your money these days, as there's more and more people, addicted to the wealth of the nation, to TV, and to business as usual, who are in need of a boost these days. Charities need all the help they can get today. Hmmm ...

Dump cable. Donate to charities.

Just think about it. It could be akin to a religious experience, freeing yourself from the bonds of 400 channels, and realizing that reading a bound group of pages, and online information and programming, too, can addict you.


- Jon O.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

News is: a terrible business to be in, generally


Journalists are becoming a sort of endangered species in the job market. With them, so are radio announcers, or radio personalities. Each area has their stars, sure, and there are still newspapers, sites and radio stations, but the job there are not growing. The world of media, more than ever since TV first appeared, has been changing thanks to the Internet and a growing set of airborne and piped-in media providers.

Job growth is stiff, and since long ago the income has sucked. Like the prevalence of writers and actors in California or New York City, "everyone" wants to be a journalist, in a sense, though I suppose the idealistic view of journalists is suffering these days, but it still skews the job market, in my view. I can personally attest to the slender income many times over, having done a variety of work in the business, as a small publisher, an editor, a design and advertising editor and manager, a small weekly section assistant editor, and more. Granted, there are some who will speak of it otherwise, but the news business is becoming a bit of a terrible place to be hoping for a paycheck. Forbes argued this, as I've quoted below.

The Worst Jobs For The 21st Century - Forbes.com

Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, where the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will always need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5% in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets.

Radio announcers will have a tough time, too. Station consolidation, advances in technology and a barren landscape for new radio stations will contribute to a 5% reduction in employment for announcers by the middle of the next decade. Even satellite radio doesn't seem immune from the changes.
As anyone who works in the news business can attest, sagging ad revenue, rising newsprint costs and Internet competition are quickly changing this industry. Large metropolitan dailies have cut jobs and the size of their papers. Of course there will always be a demand for news, but the government projects news jobs will grow at a meager 5% by 2014. Best places to look for work: small-town and suburban newspapers, TV and radio.

Working conditions: irregular hours, frequent deadline pressure, fierce competition.

Median annual salary: about $32,000 for reporters, $37,000 for broadcast news analysts.



ALT

In Pictures: The Worst Jobs For The 21st Century

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.