From the lighter side

Subscribe to RSS - From the lighter side

As long as there has been journalism, there have been journalists who get it wrong. The Summer 2012 issue of Nieman Reports has collected some of the biggest goofs in an online slideshow, "Getting it Wrong." There's "Dewey Defeats Truman," of course, but also headlines about the great Union Army victory at the Battle of Bull Run. (Oops.) Alfred Nobel's too-soon obituary and equal premature announcements of the armistice ending World War I are also included.

Remember when the words you typed didn't change? Those days are gone, thanks to the mixed blessings of Autocorrect. In this New York Times opinion piece, science writer James Gleick recounts some funny stories — (A hot dog vendor dashes to the pitcher’s mound; the manager looks at his hand-held device and says: “Oh, I see what happened. Autocorrect changed ‘southpaw’ to ‘sauerkraut.’”) — before discussing the competing algorithms of Autocorrect.

It's not easy to do good science, and, according to John Timmer at Ars Technica, it's even harder to cheat, at least without getting caught. So Timmer offers wry advice to would-be fabricators. "Unfortunately, data has somehow managed to become the foundation of modern science — so you're going to need to get some from somewhere if you want a career. A few brave souls have figured out a way to liberate data from the tyranny of experimentation: they simply make it up."

Perry White's days may be numbered, or at least they should be, according to a recent Onion story on the anachronism that has been Clark Kent's smokescreen for about 80 years now. Shouldn't it at least copy other famous but struggling newspapers and put up a paywall? "Frustrated fans of the Superman comic book said Monday the continued financial stability and cultural relevance of the series' Daily Planet newspaper is now the most unrealistic part of its universe."

If you thought Jonah Lehrer was bad — and Jayson Blair was worse — then what about that Clark Kent guy? Ed Yong reviews the mild-mannered reporter's many misdeeds in a post on his Not Exactly Rocket Science blog: "He regularly reports about himself without disclosing as much. He deceives his employers by moonlighting during working hours as a doer of derring, leaping his contractual obligations in a single bound." And how about Lois Lane's affair with her best source?

Jeremy Blachman expands on the recent "self-plagiarism" controversy in a BarnesandNobleReview.com post, which may or may not include material similar to other posts, elsewhere, from some earlier time in the universe. Blachman apologizes for any duplication of material, and the lack of duplication in cases where there is none, as well as whatever happened to the copier, the intern, and an editor's lunch that was in the refrigerator. Also something about an Irish Setter.

A guy at Gawker apparently has it down to a science, literally, Andrew Phelps writes on the Nieman Journalism Lab site. Phelps quotes Neetzan Zimmerman on the elements of a viral post, starting with the element of surprise: "A taxidermied cat being that’s been turned into a helicopter — that’s clearly going to be successful, right? Because it’s got that element of shock, it’s got that element of a cat, you know, it’s basically just tailored to the Internet."

According to Matt Thompson at the Poynter Institute, there are four basic types of journalists: The Storyteller, the Newshound, the Systems Analyst and the Provocateur. "Provocateurs surface distinctive ideas and angles, disrupting the natural tendency of media types to exhibit herd behavior," Thompson writes. But there's a downside: "The desire for a fresh take can push a journalist into being pointlessly contrarian or spotting trends that don’t exist."

Here's everything we suspected all along, collected by someone not dull enough for the laboratory. "Using the first person in your writing humanizes your work," Adam Ruben writes in, of all places, Science magazine's ScienceCareers site. "If possible, therefore, you should avoid using the first person in your writing. Science succeeds in spite of human beings, not because of us, so you want to make it look like your results magically discovered themselves."

It depends on the genre you're working in, Slate says in this commentary on the Apple/Mike Daisey blowup: "If you’re a journalist, making stuff up is not a good career move. If you’re a fantasy writer, on the other hand, you’d better make stuff up by the chapter-load, or you’ll be out of a gig. But what if you fall somewhere in the middle?" Plus, what will This American Life retract next?, and other comments.