I am watching Napoleon Dynamite
“”Can I have that napkin dispenser?” “Sure!” “Sweet! These things never run out.””
10 others are also watching Napoleon Dynamite on GetGlue.com
Here is another tip for my PR friends, but that also applies to anyone whose agency, organization, or company is under press scrutiny: Don’t ask us to downplay a story, to omit certain elements because of sensitivity, or otherwise tell us how to do write it. Especially, it’s a big mistake to tell us who to talk to or not to talk to or where we can and cannot go.
And don’t make contradictory claims (especially disguised as admonishments or criticisms of press coverage), because that would suggest incompetence, negligence, or dishonesty — all of which make you look worse when we publicly call you out on it.
Besides irritating us, these things typically make us suspicious and lead to further scrutiny, and might suggest that you have something to hide or that you are trying to distract us. Just be straight with journalists. As my former thesis committee member Dr. Nancy Snow says, truth is the best propaganda. You’re more likely to come out on top if you observe that.
I am watching the State of the Union Address
4602 others are also watching the State of the Union Address on GetGlue.com
It’s nice to see these instances when reader interaction works well. We don’t do this often enough. Every time I have interjected in the reader discussion of stories I have written or edited I get good feedback, often just with an expression of gratitude that an editor listened and then bothered to take the time to respond.
Being straight with readers and explaining why we do things the way we do can only be a good thing that helps build trust and encourage readers to ask good questions rather than speculate about journalists’ judgment by throwing escalating barbs at one another.
I wonder too about the effect this has on moderating or tempering reader discussions. It would make for an interesting study down the line following up on my earlier research on citizen motivation for sharing information and debating the issues of the day online.
I love how a business would have the gall to ask for free publicity from time to time through our business coverage, but then when it hosts taxpayer-funded public safety agencies for a big, newsworthy and highly photograph-able rescue training that they won’t allow our photographer to take pictures. Bad form! And a PR mistake. Journalists don’t forget when people refuse to play ball like that.
In fact, getting your nutsack felt up before you board a plane is pretty much proof that the “terrorists” have already won. If you buy the idea that they “hated us for our freedom”, then today’s lockdown dystopia is proof that the metaphoric bad guys are already high fiving like crazy and snorting lines off hooker tits. We today have created a lockdown sci fi dystopia that would make Orwell shit bricks.
“
| — |
War Tard may not have much to offer in the way of understatement, but he’s not without his charm. (via wasspencer) [This is correspondent inference theory in action. It’s interesting. Look it up. It’s the reason most Americans don’t think that the bad guys already won a long time ago.] |
Want to use Wikipedia in spite of its blackout in protest of the proposed Stop Internet Piracy Act, and reach articles that maybe aren’t on its Spanish-language site (presuming that like me, it’s one of your native languages)? Just visit its mobile site, even on a desktop browser! Go to en.m.wikipedia.org. Just add the “.m” before the .wikipedia.org and you’re there.
I’ve been using it successfully today, such as when I looked up something about one of my favorite episodes of “The Office,” that mentioned the seminal Battle of Shrute Farms in the U.S. Civil War.
