1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poynter recommends whitening your teeth and using Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by inthesuburbs, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. inthesuburbs

    inthesuburbs Member

  2. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    I'd just settle for a job interview at this point. It'd probably be an accomplishment.
  3. Jersey_Guy

    Jersey_Guy Active Member

    Some of the stuff on Poynter has gotten really, really painful lately.

    And the folks pushing Twitter are like a cult.
  4. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    To sum up her column: All style, no substance.

    Sounds a lot like USA Today!
  5. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    "Kids? No, I have no kids. Hey, who do you think will win the Derby?" (smiles)
  6. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    I'll add this: If you do sign up for Twitter, don't call yourself an entrepreneur. That's a dead giveaway.
  7. Not to sound like a Luddite, but to me, we're well beyond the point where people need to "learn to use Wikipedia and Google." In fact, we're to the point where maybe unlearning it might help a little. They've become crutches that people use to replace dirt-under-the-fingernails research and reporting.

    As someone who has done countless newspaper takeouts and is currently working on his second book, I've come to realize how limited those tools are in helping you find anything other than some basic, surface information. The Internet can obviously be helpful, but it's typically going to cost you (for newspaper archives and such). And a lot of the really good stuff is found in books and magazines that aren't converted to public use PDFs yet and probably never will be.

    I'm old school. I think people need to re-learn two forgotten tools: The library and the phone.
  8. Also: "Rarely refer to your children."

    No one should have to apologize for having children in order to land a job. Talk about ageism.

    For a similar effect, I would drop the use of the phrase "tan slacks." They are called "khakis" now, Colleen, and hardly anybody I know under age 35 wears them. Dark jeans are in, not 1997 Dockers.

    And "eliminate cologne"?!? I mean, if you're splashing dad's Brut or spraying your vintage Drakaar Noir left over from the seventh-grade dance, you've probably got problems. But there are plenty of sophisticated, subtle scents that us over-30 oldsters can and should wear.
  9. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    And no cursing in the !@#$% newsroom!
  10. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    A photographer (and the copy desk who let is pass) got chewed out at my last shop for sourcing Wikipedia in a cutline. Didn't help that the information he'd sourced turned out to be wrong. :) I mean, yeah, it doesn't hurt to check it, but it's a starting point, not a reliable source of certified information.

    Does anyone seriously not know how to use f'ing Google these days?

    ETA: And as much as I admire the work that Poynter does and love reading most of its content, there is a growing amount of online fad-pushing and industry apologism there.
  11. I'm still trying to process the advice that to look young, one should wear "tan slacks."
  12. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    She means tan but made of wool, which means they wouldn't be khakis. A bit dressier than khakis with a blue blazer. Some also wear gray or olive wool slacks with a blazer. Like these:


    She forgot Hair Club For Men and a trip to the plastic surgeon.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page