About to begin your first job? Or first internship? Here are 20 tips:

On June 1 last year Atul Chitnis, one of India's best-known technologists, posted a list of 20 tips on Twitter for people starting their first job that day. He wrote on his blog some months later that the list was partly or fully re-posted all across the web, but "people keep asking me for a link to the tips. So I guess I should post them here on my own blog as well".

Of the 20 tips, here are my favourites:

• This is not school/college. You won’t lose marks because you don’t know something. You WILL if you don’t say so!
   
• Don’t be afraid of stating an opinion — be afraid of NOT stating one. You could be wrong, but won’t know if you don’t pipe up!
   
• Employers aren’t really looking for a bunch of yes-(wo)men. But they aren’t looking for a bunch of revolutionaries, either.
   
• Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, especially if you are young. You will thank me for this advice.
   
• Dare to look beyond your given assignment. “Good enough” never is. 

And I wholeheartedly endorse what Chitnis says at the end:

• While you may ignore all my tips for your first job — don’t ever skip breakfast.

I have lost count of the number of times I have told my students that they should NEVER give breakfast a miss.

If you're about to begin your first job — or your first internship even — you should read all 20 of Chitnis's tips and then attempt to put them into practice.

• Thanks to Commitscion Jalaja Ramanunni (Class of 2009) for the link. 

• UPDATE (June 20, 2013): Here's how to answer that near-universal job interview question: WHY SHOULD WE HIRE YOU?

"Mr Editor, your slips are showing!"

How does a film reviewer and national cultural editor of a leading newspaper react when he is accused — by a blogger, no less — of not knowing how to write in English?

If he is Mayank Shekhar of Hindustan Times, he waffles. Here's an excerpt from a Q&A with Shekhar on the Mumbai Boss website:

Have you have seen this (the critical blog post by Chetna Prakash)?
I’ve heard about it, not seen it. I’m flattered. This particular one I’ve glanced through because it was all over the place and guys in my team showed it to me, but it was a long time back. It comes with the job, especially because I’ve been a columnist and a critic so you have to take a stand, you can’t be sitting on the fence.

But her contention wasn’t that. It was that your English was incorrect.
Yeah, so when [my team] brought it to me, I explained to them what I meant and what this is and that’s very important because you don’t want your team thinking that you don’t know the language for god’s sake. There were a whole lot of things that were puns. Whole lot of stuff, which one could explain pretty easily.

So what did Chetna Prakash write actually? She took Shekhar to task for mangling the English language in his film reviews and she cited examples from his critiques of Peepli Live, We Are Family, and Kites. Study her blow-by-blow job here: The rise and rise of Mayank Shekhar: Or has Sarah Palin found her literary match?

Prakash also poses the question no journalist writing in English wants to be asked:

How can you be one of the most popular film reviewers of India, the national cultural editor of one of the country’s largest selling dailies, and a winner of the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism — when you have no concept of the English language, your primary tool of trade?

Whoa! That must have hurt. But if you're a senior English-newspaper journalist with a national readership, your writing skills better be up to par. Otherwise, you are just asking for it. As Mayank Shekhar did.

To give credit to Shekhar, though, his responses to questions about the influence of PR professionals on editorial content and about the vexed issue of plagiarism would resonate strongly with any good media professional, especially a journalist.

Here are his views on how to deal with plagiarism:

Would you fire someone whom you knew plagiarised something?
Would I fire someone if it was absolutely proven? Yes.

Has that happened?
In my current job, not a single case of proven plagiarism has been brought to my notice, for which I may have had to fire someone. Which isn’t to suggest that it doesn’t happen, surely it does, and perhaps is even rampant across the board, especially on the Internet, where all information is shared, and is rarely considered sacrosanct enough to merit credit, unfortunately. In my past jobs, whether I have directly fired anyone or not, I have come across instances where an entire interview has been made up and published, without the reporter ever having met or spoken to the person concerned. In such a circumstance, quite obviously, the said reporter has been asked to leave.

• The interview with Mayank Shekhar is part of a series on Mumbai Boss called "Editor's Notes". Read the Q&A with Open magazine's Manu Joseph here. Pay attention especially to Joseph's views on Open's code of ethics.

When furniture get nightmares

What is my television's worst fear? What might my sofa dread? And what is my centre table's worst nightmare?

These are the questions cartoonist Dan Piraro asked himself before setting out to answer them in his own unparalleled style:

Piraro, the creator of the syndicated newspaper cartoon Bizarro, explains on his blog the origins of this particular cartoon:

We’ve all felt sorry for a small chair as an extremely heavy person sits on it, and that empathy for inanimate objects was what led me to muse about things common household furniture might fear or dread. Of course, I know that inanimate objects are not sentient and have no feelings but by “chair,” I mean “child,” and who hasn’t felt sorry for a child being sat upon by a large adult? Perhaps my sensitivity in this area comes from personal experience; my parents were very poor when my siblings and I were young and could not afford furniture, so they sat on us. They couldn’t afford children, either, but until they figured out where we were coming from, they just kept having them. It was painful at times, yes, but it also brought us closer together as a family. 

How can you not admire a man whose genius for cartooning matches his flair for wit?

Take a look at some of the other Bizarro cartoons:

What does that last cartoon mean? Piraro explains, again tongue firmly in cheek:

One reader wrote to me this week asking me what this cartoon meant. If you are that reader, then you already know the answer because I responded promptly and politely, which is my habit. If you are not that reader and have wondered for yourself what this cartoon means, wonder no more for the next sentence will explain it. The devil likes bad things to happen to people so if someone came through surgery quite well, he would be disappointed by the “good” news.  If you are now wondering if I actually believe in the devil since I draw so many cartoons featuring him, the answer is yes, he is Karl Rove.

You will get this cartoon only if you are a huge comics fan — and have been one for a long time (Hint: That's Elmer Fudd fleeing for his life):

Visit Dan Piraro's website to get your regular dose of wry — make that bizarre — gags: "Bizarro Blog!".

Also read:

• When Dan Piraro made a mistake with a Che Guevara cartoon

• Telling it like it is... with cartoons

• One of our most famous cartoonists, Hemant Morparia, bemoans the decline (and possible early death) of the political cartoon in India. (Scroll down to read the item on Morparia.)

Do you find this magazine cover offensive?

Or do you think it is a clever way to tell a story about the merger of two major airline companies in the US?

When Bloomberg Businessweek used this composite image on the cover of its February 6 issue with the headline "Let's Get It On", it probably did not figure on the virulent reaction from some readers.

Here are some of the "negative" letters the magazine printed in the February 16 issue:

• Offensive … displeasing … distasteful … indecent … abominable … obscene … objectionable … that’s what I have to say about your Feb. 6-12 cover. You should be ashamed.

• I think you have a sharp magazine with good writing, making what is (for me) a boring subject — business — actually interesting and understandable. But I object to your Feb. 6-12 cover, the one with a Continental plane “getting it on” with a United plane. Couldn’t you have made a point about an airline merger without descending into base sexual imagery?

• Your Feb. 6-12 cover page was in extremely poor taste. You made it even worse with the headline “Let’s Get It On.” Surely you could have described the business events going on between Continental and United in a better fashion, and not by showing two planes having sex with each other on the cover of an important business magazine.

• Get It On, Love Built to Last, Friends with Benefits, Exchange Vows, Home Run: Your cover page is so subtle it should have a condom over the dominant top plane (should be United) and a diaphragm shield inside the tail of the submissive bottom one (should be Continental). You will lose several subscriptions over portraying the sacred marriage of two companies as just a long mile-high f – – k. Who was the genius who sent this around legal without thinking? For April 1, maybe, but not right after the holy days!

Of course, there was some positive reaction, too:

• Got to love last week’s cover: A Continental plane mounting a United plane with the caption, “Let’s Get It On”! On the same page, you talk about Facebook having “friends with benefits.” It shows that business has great humor. LMAO! Framing this cover. Thanks.

For the record, I did not even think this cover had anything to do with sexual imagery. One reason for that might be because I did not get the significance of the headline accompanying the image (did you?). "Let's Get It On" seemed to indicate to me that it was time to party, now that the world's largest airline had been formed. And without a second thought I turned the cover page and began reading the magazine. It's only when I read the letters in the February 16 issue that I did the mental equivalent of a double take.

You can read the other letters here: Feedback.

Also read: "Good ideas and good writing need to be backed up by good design".

The things that drive editors crazy

For some time now I have been visiting The Blood-Red Pencil, a blog that offers "sharp and pointed observations about good writing". The blog is run by 10 editors and writers whose goal, they say, is to help writers by blogging about what they know best: editing.

If you are a writer or an editor, or even a media student, you will find plenty of relevant and enlightening material here presented in an interesting way.

Take, for instance, a January 2010 post on the things that drive editors crazy. Author and freelance editor Maryann Miller gets straight to the point in her intro:

I’ve been editing for a long time and am still amazed at how often I see common mistakes repeated over and over again.

And then she gives us examples of the common mistakes:

Fred walked out, taking the file with him. You don’t need ‘with him’. If he took the file, it’s with him, DUH!! Or the sentence could be rewritten to make it a little more visual. Fred grabbed the file and walked out.

Those gray eyes of his stared right at her. This is an incredibly popular phraseology used in romance novels, and I wince every time I read it. As if he would be looking at her with anyone else’s eyes.

Sally shrugged her shoulders. What else would she shrug?

Harry nodded his head. As opposed to his elbow?

Sam found himself standing in the middle of… Was Sam lost? Much stronger to write: Sam stood in the middle of….

It was a picture of Madeline Smith, herself. Could it not just be a picture of Madeline Smith, period? Even my husband asked if the use of the reflexive pronoun was necessary, and he’s not an editor.

As I noted earlier, there's so much to learn here. Read the post in its entirety: "Things That Drive An Editor Crazy".

• The latest post, published today, on The Blood-Red Pencil is also, coincidentally, by Maryann Miller. Titled "Time Out for A Little Fun", the piece focuses on comic strips that, she says, feature jokes that connect loosely to writing and promoting. Read it here.

Your Facebook profile may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good you will be at your job

I have always known that companies have been checking out the Facebook profiles of prospective employees. Now here is confirmation of that fact in the form of a study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology last month.

Writing about the study on the Forbes magazine website, Kashmir Hill says that employers already know it’s a good idea to check job candidates’ Facebook pages "to make sure there aren’t any horrible red flags there".

She continues:

The reddest flags for most employers seem to be drugs, drinking, badmouthing former employers, and lying about one’s qualifications.

But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job.

The Facebook page is the first interview, Hill writes, because if you don’t like a person there, you probably won’t like working with them.

Read the feature in its entirety here: "Facebook Can Tell You If A Person Is Worth Hiring".

• Also read: "Facebook: Boon or bane?" and "Yes, recruiters are using Facebook and Twitter to screen candidates".

Thou shalt follow these 10 commandments to be effective — and successful — at work

The best advice on workplace behaviour that I have ever read comes from Mary M. Mitchell, who heads an executive training consultancy, The Mitchell Organization. The company, which is based in Seattle, is dedicated to the credo that good manners create good relationships, and good relationships create good business.

MARY M. MITCHELL

Last month, Mitchell wrote a feature for Reuters, which was titled "The 10 Commandments of Business Behaviour".

Mitchell opens her article with an appropriate quote from the late American tycoon, John D. Rockefeller: "I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other skill under the sun."

And then she explains, while outlining her 10 Commandments, the impact your interpersonal skills have on your ability to do your job.

Here are Mitchell's 10 Commandments:

1. Thou shalt have a positive attitude.

2. Thou shalt be on time.

3. Thou shalt praise in public and criticise in private.

4. Thou shalt get names straight.

5. Thou shalt speak slowly and clearly on the telephone.

6. Thou shalt not use foul language.

7. Thou shalt dress appropriately.

8. Thou shalt take clear messages.

9. Thou shalt honour social courtesies at business functions.

10. Thou shalt be accountable.

The point about having a positive attitude (I have to say here that I have problems on this score sometimes) is deservingly No. 1. Everybody has bad days, Mitchell writes, but...

... nobody has the right to take it out on others. Rudeness, impoliteness, surliness, ugly moods, unprovoked displays of anger, and general unpleasantness can be costly to your career — and your company's bottom line.

I am glad, too, that Mitchell has made it clear with Commandment No. 6 that there is no place for foul language in the workplace. Back in January last year, I had written about this issue on The Reading Room (What is the need to turn the air blue?). Now, in her article, Mitchell points out that vulgarity, poor grammar, and use of slang are three of the top reasons people don't get hired. That should give many people out there, especially freshers on the threshold of employment, some serious pause for thought.

Mitchell also discusses another issue that I consider to be very important — dressing appropriately:

Don't enter your workplace without knowing its dress code. If you must, call the human resources department and ask. Good grooming is at least 10 times more important than making a fashion statement. Good taste and fashion are not always synonymous.

There's lots of good advice here. Read the article in its entirety — "The 10 Commandments of Business Behaviour" — and think hard about how you will apply these guidelines.

What impression do you create when you use "SMS lingo"?

Here are snatches from a conversation thread I was privileged to read on Facebook some time ago (actually you can see similar posts and comments written in similar inelegant language on Facebook — and on Twitter — every day):

cos thedy r idiot

idiots

xctly..........

who is sayng xctly! som1 coming frm d same list..

What balderdash is this?

I have never felt the need to use so-called SMS lingo... not even when I am writing an SMS (why do you think our mobiles come with a T9, or dictionary, feature?). For one, I am never so pressed for time that I cannot give some thought to articulating my thoughts. And second, I get the heebie-jeebies when I have to read an illiterate text message or Facebook post or comment.

That is why I was pleased to see a short piece titled "Inelegant language — illiterate impression" by Srijana Mitra Das on the the edit page of The Times of India yesterday. "A clear connection," Mitra Das writes, "certainly exists between poor vocabulary used in text messaging and poor linguistic skills overall — not to mention a poor impression accompanying messages from such writers."

If these people do not even have time to spell words correctly, argues Mitra Das, if they are so "terrifically busy", how will they ever make time for books? "Obviously, their grammatical growth and literary vibrancy will be stunted," she says.

And then she delivers the coup de grâce:

Texts that say "hv snt rpt" instead of "I have sent you my report" make you think of someone coming to work wearing crumpled clothes and a bad attitude — sloppy, unconcerned.... Even between friends, poorly worded texts — "hw abt tht flm" — don't sound cool. They sound illiterate.

My sentiments exactly.

PS: My tolerance levels for illiterate posts on Facebook are dangerously low nowadays. So low that I have begun unsubscribing from activity stories, comments and likes, and even status updates of people whose inelegant language drives me nuts. Does that make me a bad person?

A marketing whiz and the lessons she learned from journalism

Good journalists make good media professionals. Meaning, if they want to, they can do well in most other jobs in the media industry be it PR (as many of my former colleagues have proved), marketing, advertising... even teaching. :-)

That is what I believe. And that is what I tell every new batch of students at Commits.

NANCY FRIEDMAN

Now here's a former journalist turned marketing whiz reinforcing my belief that journalism training and experience can be a great asset in other media fields. Nancy Friedman, who styles herself as Chief Wordworker at Wordworking, an unusual communications company in California, says she has been able to apply to marketing some of the lessons she learned from journalism and she explains them in detail on her blog, Fritinancy.

Here are the 10 points she discusses:

1. Get to the point.
2. Take notes.
3. Ask and anticipate questions.
4. Spell the names right.
5. Nouns and verbs are your best friends.
6. Hello sweetheart, get me rewrite.
7. Omit needless words.
8. Grab attention with a great headline.
9. If you make a mistake, issue a correction.
10. There's no writer's block on deadline.

To let you revel in the strength of Friedman's argument — and to give you a flavour of her uncluttered, persuasive writing style — let me reproduce what she has to say about her first point, "Get to the point".

All journalists learn the inverted pyramid format: putting the most important news in the first paragraph, or lead, and the least newsworthy information at the end. Readers of ads, web content, and white papers are no different. Give them the information they need up front; don't waste time with throat-clearing and other verbal filigrees.

And because I really like what she has to say about Point No. 3, let me give that to you as well:

Ask and anticipate questions. When you're digging for information, there are no better digging tools than the five W's — who, what, when, where, why — plus H for how. I use them all the time when I'm interviewing clients. Who are your competitors? What are your products? When do you expect to launch? Where are your target markets? Why are you in business? How do you expect to achieve your goals? And like the journalist I once was, I'm ready with follow-up questions when I get the answers.

Friedman elaborates on the other points just as brilliantly. Read her column in its entirety here: "What Journalism Taught Me".

• Also visit Nancy Friedman's Wordworking website here (Slogan: "Announce. Convince. Describe. Define. Celebrate. Sell. Tell your story.") and learn how she helps companies tell their story.

Imagine — NDTV does not know the difference between "byte" and "bite"

For ten years I have been telling my students at Commits that a "quote" on television is referred to as a "sound bite" or "bite". But I have noticed many journalists — both print and television — writing it as "byte".

A few months ago I sent an email about "bite vs bite" to CNN-IBN editor-in-chief Rajdeep Sardesai and he replied, "It should be sound bite. But you are right, several of us, myself included, use sound byte. Am not sure why."

Now here's a dictionary definition of sound bite: 

noun

a brief, striking remark or statement excerpted from an audiotape or videotape for insertion in a broadcast news story.

And this is what byte means:

noun Computers 

1. adjacent bits, usually eight, processed by a computer as a unit. 

2. the combination of bits used to represent a particular letter, number, or special character.

So how did NDTV air this graphic today with "BYTE of the DAY" leaping out at you from the screen?

IT'S STRANGE THAT NDTV DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "BYTE" AND "BITE".

I am indebted to Commitscion Dipankar Paul (Class of 2009) for sending me this image via e-mail with the subject line: "What do you think of this?"

Subsequently I wrote to the NDTV bureau chief in Bangalore, Darius Taraporvala; the news editor of CNN-IBN in New Delhi, Dipika Kaura; and also Imran Qureshi, the Bangalore bureau chief of Aaj Tak and Headlines Today to ask about the house style rule on byte vs bite.

Here is the relevant sentence from Taraporvala's e-mail to me:

To me 'byte' is computer terminology, and 'soundbite' refers to the reactions we get in the field.

This is what Kaura had to say in her e-mail:

Should be bite — that’s how the Oxford dictionary defines it. But it's more a matter of nomenclature. We’ve shifted to SOT — Sound on Tape. That at least is clearly defined.

Imran Qureshi also wrote to say that it should be "bite" and not "byte".

Byte is the language of computers.

I'm glad that's been sorted out. But has it? Watch television news closely and let me know.