Archive | Writing RSS feed for this section

We’re all blogging now

Journo blogger and academic Paul Bradshaw asks if we can define blogging without referring to technology. That’s a good idea – for us, technology is only the tool, not the product. But what Paul offers as an alternative lacks, and I hope he doesn’t mind me saying so, a certain something.

“Blogging, above all else, is conversational. It is social. It is networked. There are two key features to the blog: links, and comments. Fail to include either, and you’re talking to yourself.”

I agree with Paul that blogging is social. But, by failing to include links and comments, are we really “talking to yourself”?

Nah. This seems a very technocratic definition. After all, journalist Paul Carr’s blog is undoubtedly a blog, but has no comments (for reasons he explained here). Marketing guru and author Seth Godin only does trackbacks, not comments, on his very popular (and influential) blog for reasons he explained here. One of the fathers of blogging, Dave Winer, hasn’t had didn’t have comments on his main blog for years. Winer, an often hectoring voice online, was left open to accusations of not taking what he dished out. [Update: as pointed out in a comment here, Dave does now have comments. Mea culpa.]

So what’s missing?

I’ve long said, without really explaining myself, that often blogging is, really, the first form of journalism born of the web. Blogging has changed both the way we think about creating a piece of digital journalism, and the way that piece of work is digested after we’ve clicked “publish”.

It’s probably time to explain myself.

You see, when we decide to use facts to describe or discuss an event, issue or idea, it’s reasonable to say we’re producing journalism. And I’d contend that bloggers often do just this. And I’d further contend that the best bloggers are going into this with their eyes open; they have a keen awareness of at least four factors (I’m sure you can think of more) which make their kind of work different from, say, print journalism, or broadcast, or anything else.

Let’s take a quick look at the four factors, and how they change the end product.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 6 }

In print

Couple of things in the paper over the last three days… on Friday, something on managing projects using tools including Basecamp and Writely. I’ve become something of a fan of both recently, although I’m with Lloyd when it comes to 30 Boxes – just not ready for prime time.

Then, yesterday, one of those projects I’ve been using Basecamp for is finally just about ready to bear fruit… a new studio, and a podcasting plan.

Comments Off

The world’s worst airline

Ariana

My friend John is responsible, in large part, for my dislike of flying. When, once, we shared a disgraceful, environmental hazard of a flat over in Putney, he would detail – over morose beers – what an air crash would feel like. “Everyone says it would be quick,” he would say, “but it wouldn’t. Falling from that height, you’d be alive for five minutes, knowing your fate, before you actually died.”

John doesn’t fly much now, and needs copious amounts of drink to make it happen when he does. For me, despite his best efforts, it’s a dislike, rather than fear. I still fly around quite a lot, but now have at least one spell during each flight when, sweaty palmed and remembering John’s cheering words, a spot of turbulence has me swearing I’m going to take a ship, train or car everywhere from here on in.

The odd thing is, those moments are juxtaposed with the other aspects of flying I enjoy; during the cruise, a combination of enforced idleness and alcohol makes it quite a creative time – I’ve written a few decent pieces while flying home. And the approach to London City airport, which I experienced for the first time ever a few weeks ago, will live in my mind for ever – or, at least, until Alzheimer’s takes a hold.

Let me explain: coming into City is much, much better than going into Heathrow, and not just because if you live in the Docklands you can get from plane to sofa in 30 minutes. City’s approach is a remarkable low-level tour of London’s finest sights: flying from Edinburgh, as I was, you descend over North London before crossing the Thames above the airport, turning right and hurtling west, below Heathrow’s final approach, over south London, before swinging through 180 degrees right above the Houses of Parliament and the London eye, looking down into Downing Street, and entering the final approach.

Still really travelling, and with all those rumbling noises planes make when they’re gathering themselves to land, you pass over the City, then look down onto the pyramid atop Canary Wharf and then… oh God – (sweaty palms here) the little cityhopping plane points its nose at the ground and – fucking hell look at the Dome and the laserbeam picking out the Greenwich meridian! – descend, very rapidly, and – thump! – hit the runway before slamming on the brakes because the runway’s not very long is he slowing up that’s the terminal building going by when’s he braking oh thank God he is at last finally slowing and there’s the waves but at least we’re not going to splash into them with horrific loss of life this time.

Anyway – all of this is a long way of saying: I read this wonderful piece and thought of John. Would he, in fact, need sedation before flying Ariana, the Afghan national airline? (The image on this post, with possibly intentially funny caption, comes from BBC News – they once wrote about the airline too).

“Ariana has few peers in the airline business for many reasons. All of them are bad. Its history is abysmal. During Afghanistan’s quarter century of war Ariana planes were shut down, shot down or hijacked. Flights plunged into snowy mountains or vanished into remote deserts. Still, today, it is nobody’s airline of choice. A disastrous safety record means Ariana flights are barred from most European and American airports. Nicknamed, only half- jokingly, “Scaryana”, UN officials and foreign diplomats are forbidden to board. And most of the 1,700 staff are, as Atash cheerfully admits, spectacularly incompetent or corrupt. For them “inshallah” is more than a religious invocation – it is a corporate creed.”

The approach into Kabul also sounds a little like flying into the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong (an approach I once sat through, terrified, in a cabin full of fully bedecked morris dancers, although that’s a story for another day). A little like Kai Tak… only with the added fun of dodging Stinger anti-aircraft missiles…

“Thanks to US support the mujahideen were also armed with formidable Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. So Ariana pilots had to learn the “corkscrew”. On approach to Kabul, planes would cruise at a safe height, avoiding the jagged peaks around the city. Suddenly they dived towards the ground in a stomach-churning spiral, hoping to shake off any Stingers, before levelling off at the last minute for a bone-jarring landing.”

Anyway – fantastic piece, not least because some brave soul is actually attempting to turn the airline around, improve safety and make it respectable enough to be allowed into airports around the world. Indeed, I was amused to find that the airline has a very respectable website, proudly talking of plans to renew their fleet with new Boeings – and get training for maintenance and engineering staff too. Without knowing its history, even John might be lured into buying a ticket with them…

Comments { 3 }

Poster tubes

tube.gif
Pull yourselves together
(via the print version of this week’s Economist).

Posters advising Londoners not to bother their fellow passengers or – for God’s sake – hassle the cops on account of mere abandoned bags have been appearing all over the city in the last week. It’s a uniquely British attempt to restore the famous Stiff Upper Lip. Or a uniquely British misuse of the comma. Your shout.

Comments { 1 }

Steinberg’s Hierarchy of Scandal

mySociety supremo Tom Steinberg has a wonderful chart on his weblog which ranks scandal by severity and – uniquely – splits actors and actions. He asks “is it useful for anything” and I’d argue it certainly is. I clearly recall the legendary Bill Allsopp presenting us with something similar early on in our journalism course at Napier, in an effort to teach us news values. I think that, back in 1991, the Queen was atop the list of actors, and “other royalty” would have ranked much higher. But that might just mean Tom’s new list reflects today’s changing values. Wonder what Bill would make of it?

Comments Off

Bad writing

Struggling through book after academic book for my OU course, one feeling recurs far too frequently. Reading a sentence for the third, maybe fourth time, I suddenly get the concept the author’s trying to explain. It’s a great moment, hearing that penny drop, the kind of thing that makes this huge slog worth it. Even bearable. But then I think: that could have been put so much more clearly.

Now, I’m tempted to think it’s just me – that the complexity of the stuff I’m studying means there’s no really simple way of writing about it. But then I know from work – where we’re often trying to explain hugely complicated concepts to a lay audience – that it can be done, at least in IT. Of course, you can’t force people to read the stuff, but if they want to, they should be able to understand it.

So it’s nice to see Ophelia Benson taking a potshot at bad academic writing in a piece on butterflies and wheels.com. I feel it’s not just me struggling with this kind of stuff; maybe they really are not written very well.

Of course, academics have one big advantage over us hacks. While we have to work to persuade people to read our stuff, they have a captive audience fearful that if they glaze over, and skate through a paragraph or five, their act of omission guarantees the bloody thing comes up in the exam.

(found via the Guardian’s Editor)

Comments { 1 }