Why amateur bloggers will never replace journalists

Stewart Pinkerton, a former editor of Forbes magazine, in The Fall of the House of Forbes:

What's missing from raw footage streamed to the Web is an authoritative voice, the result of years of source cultivation, the building up of levels of trust that allow a reporter to put something in context. It's something that only established news outlets ... can do: flood the zone with reporters on a major story and report not just that there was a massacre of Congolese Tutsi in Burundi or a student riot in Paris, but also knowledgeably examine the economic and political reasons behind it. Most people need an expert to filter, prioritise, and context information. A fire hose of information without that is useless.

Yet now anyone can call himself a journalist.

"Hey, I can do that."

No, you can't.

My thoughts exactly.

• Also read: Stewart Pinkerton in The Fall of the House of Forbes on "A venerated editor, a rookie reporter, and the sparks that flew between them, leading to a brilliant expose of Avon".

A venerated editor, a rookie reporter, and the sparks that flew between them, leading to a brilliant expose of Avon

I am about to finish reading a most interesting book, The Fall of the House of Forbes. I have already come across some passages, though, that will fascinate journalists and media students in India.

JIM MICHAELS

In Chapter 17, the author, Stewart Pinkerton, a former managing editor of Forbes, introduces us to Jim Michaels, "the most important editorial architect" of the magazine. Michaels, who graduated from Harvard in 1942, tried to enlist in the army during the Second World War, Pinkerton writes, but his eyesight wasn't good enough so he became an ambulance driver for the American Field Service in Burma.

After the war, and this is where it begins to become engrossing for us, Michaels signed up with a news agency, UPI, to report from India, "a place the founder of Forbes once characterised as a 'filthy country' ".

Working out of the New Delhi bureau, Michaels was the first newsman to write about the war in Kashmir, travelling on horseback to get behind Pakistani lines. In his dispatches, he described Pakistani military units marching up to the border in regimental regalia and changing into civilian clothes before crossing the border.

When Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated, Michaels's news report was, apparently, the first to reach the outside world. From The Fall of the House of Forbes:

Here in his own words, as described in a private e-mail decades later, is the scoop behind his scoop: 

It's hard to visualise, but in those long-ago days there was little automotive traffic. It took me ten minutes to get to Birla House. I got there before the police had cordoned off the property. There was immense confusion, of course, but I scribbled notes and rushed to file what, I believe, was the first detailed report to reach the outside world.

In those days, pre-Internet, pre-mobile satellite phones, one had to file overseas from Delhi by cable from the CTO (Central Telegraph Office) at Eastern Court near Connaught Place. By the time I got there to file my first dispatch and returned to the scene, Birla House was cordoned off: No entry to anyone. I knew the place fairly well so I climbed a low stone wall in the back only to confront an astonished constable, who let me pass after I flashed a credential he could not read because he was illiterate. My agile trespass gave me a leg up on most other foreign journalists because they couldn't get inside for some time.

Michaels's reporting, Pinkerton writes, showed up the next day on the front pages of newspapers all over the world. The following day, Michaels also reported "for all the world to read the details of Gandhi's funeral on the banks of the Yamuna".

Later, in Chapter 20, titled "Let's Really Stir Up the Animals", Pinkerton serves up a juicy appetiser in the intro:

Cutting stories by at least 15 per cent without shedding any facts was a Michaels trademark — the key to making Forbes readable for busy executives overloaded with information. Said one of his former proteges: "Jim could edit the Lord's Prayer down to six words, and nobody would miss anything."

Nor would Michaels tolerate a story that read like a press release. "THIS ISN'T REPORTING, IT'S STENOGRAPHY! WHY IS THIS PERSON STILL ON STAFF????" he wrote on top of one particularly credulous piece. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST SEND THEM A VALENTINE!!!" was another favourite skewer.

An editor after my own heart!

Pinkerton tells us in the same chapter that Michaels, who was editor of Forbes for an unbelievable 37 years, loved to take down big companies riding high on Wall Street and being gushed over by the competition. We then learn about a young reporter, Subrata Chakravarty, a Harvard grad, who wrote a highly critical report on Avon...

...a company with a spectacular growth rate and a high-flying stock. Chakravarty said the growth rate was a sham and that the company had been built by exploiting women. It was counter to what everyone else thought. Passing the draft to other editors, Michaels got nothing but sneers back, and toned the story down, much to Chakravarty's dismay.

Not realising that rewriting Jim Michaels was the equivalent of a death sentence, Chakravarty went back to his typewriter and reedited Michaels's edit. Not a good idea. Less than an hour after resubmitting the draft, Chakravarty's phone rang. A gravelly voice barked, "Subrata, who is the editor of this magazine?"

"You are, sir."

"That's right, and I'll thank you to remember that when I edit a story, it stays edited." Michaels slammed down the phone.

There's more to this story because Chakravarty refuses to roll over and play dead: 

Hurrying to Michaels's office, Chakravarty found him slumped in his chair, glowering darkly. "Don't come in here, I'm too mad to talk to you."

"But Mr. Michaels, I did exactly what you told me."

Michaels shot up in his chair, glaring. "I NEVER told you to rewrite me."

"Yes, you did," Chakravarty insisted, recounting an earlier lunch conversation when Michaels said that if a writer disagreed with something he had done, it could be fixed and then discussed. Michaels relaxed and even managed a tiny smile. "Well, I misspoke. I meant we would talk about what you could change. Now you've added 150 lines to a cover story, and it's already laid out. So get out of here so I can fix it again."

Convinced by Chakravarty's arguments and facts, Michaels cut the story by knifing out many of the caveats he had earlier included. After the story ran, on July 1, 1973, Avon's stock fell to $17 from $130 as its results bore out Chakravarty's analysis. It was an amazing support of a young reporter, in the face of opposition from others. But rewriting Jim Michaels was a mistake, Chakravarty recalls, "a rookie can make only once".

Later, Michaels would cite the Avon piece as a classic Forbesian tale.

SUBRATA CHAKRAVARTY

Is it any wonder that Subrata Chakravarty, the rookie reporter, later went on to become the managing editor of Forbes under Michaels?

***

• Watch a video tribute to Jim Michaels by Forbes staff: "Remembering Jim Michaels". And read "An appreciation of an original".

• Also read: "Notes on Business Journalism", by Subrata Chakravarty, posted on Outlook editor Krishna Prasad's blog. An excerpt: "Business journalism should entertain as well as offer insight. We should write as the 'drama critics of business'. What that means is that we should make it clear who the star is and who the dope. That may not make you popular with management but it’s a lot of fun to read — and it offers your insight to the reader."

• And visit the Forbes India website here. (Commitscion Nilofer D'Souza, Class of 2009, is a features writer for the magazine.)

• Also read: "The amazing books that made me fall in love with journalism all over again".

It takes a journalist (naturally) to pull off an ingenious marriage proposal

Two weeks ago, David Pogue, the brilliant technology columnist of The New York Times, proposed to Nicki, the woman he loved.

Pogue wanted his children be part of this life-changing event, he writes on his blog, so one night last spring, "I asked them for their suggestions for a fantastic proposal. My two teenagers informed me that the most epic and unforgettable proposal would be a fake movie trailer. It would start out like any other romantic-comedy preview, but gradually reveal itself to be a thinly veiled version of our love story."

Pogue continues:

After its “premiere,” people kept asking if I’d be posting it online so they could show their friends. With Nicki’s encouragement, I did — and to my astonishment, the video went viral. It also generated a lot of questions.

Among the questions:

• Nice job. But not all of us have thousands of dollars to spend on making full-blown movies for our girlfriends.

• What about the opening shot? You clearly had a crane rig for that.

• In the YouTube version, we can see your girlfriend’s reaction as she watches, picture-in-picture style. How could she not know she was being filmed?

Want to know the answers to these intriguing questions? Go here: "How to Propose the Pogue Way".

Everything you always wanted to know about how to use punctuation marks (but didn't know whom to ask)

There appears to be some confusion regarding the use of hyphens. For starters, many people are unsure about how a hyphen (-) is different from a dash (—). Next comes the question of when to employ a hyphen and when to choose a dash. (For more on dashes, read Ben Yagoda's enlightening column in The New York Times here.)

SEMI-COLONIC IRRITATION: A STILL FROM A SHORT FILM CONCEIVED AND PRODUCED BY FIRST YEAR STUDENTS OF COMMITS.

Many people are also stumped by what is known as suspensive hyphenation, in which two (or more) prefixes may be linked to one word, as in this example from a recent issue of DNA:

Nilanjana Roy is a cat-, cheel-, mouse- and mongoose-whisperer and this is the animals’ story, unhampered by human interference.

Here's another example of suspensive hyphenation from a Times of India report on the release in Bengaluru of Rajinikanth's film, Lingaa:

Bengaluru, where more than 10 theatres are screening the Rajinikanth-, Sonakshi Sinha- and Anushka Shetty-starrer, has had a long-time following for Rajini dating back to the 1980s, and his fans left no stone unturned in making sure their Thalaiva's (leader's) movie opened to a record gathering in most areas where their network is strong.

Earlier this month, V.R. Narayanaswami, who writes the fortnightly "Plain Speaking" column in Mint, dedicated his piece to the use of hyphens and gave us many examples from the European Union's English style guide. The hypen may have its detractors, Narayanaswami writes, but, and I agree with him, hyphens are not only useful but also essential if we want to make our meaning clear.

When we write "small business owner", are we referring to a small person who owns a business, when we mean a person who owns a small business? In which case, we must write "small-business owner". It is only the hyphen that removes all ambiguity in this case.

So, however much some young people would like to wish the hyphen away, it is here to stay.

In Narayanaswami's column, there is a reference also to "suspensive hyphenation":

An interesting use of the hyphen, not described in grammar books, is coordinate construction. If there is a phrase such as “heat-resistant and acid-resistant” in the sentence, the first-occurring “resistance” is dropped. So we get “heat- and acid-resistant”. Similarly, we have “water- and air-borne diseases”. These are also called suspended compounds. The structure is fairly common now in business writing and technical writing. 

Read the column in its entirety here: "Euro guide to the use of hyphens". 

• Meanwhile, I am grateful to Commitscion Supriya Srivastav (Class of 2011), for posting on my Facebook wall a link to this hilarious yet very instructive "Word Crimes" video on YouTube:

So, did you learn something from watching that video? I sure hope so. :-)

ALSO READ:

• "Hyphen Anxiety" — when are words hyphenated? When are they not?

• "5 Tips to Understand Hyphenated Words"

• And while we are on the subject of punctuation marks, you may want to read up on the proper use of the colon, how to use dashes, the rules for use of ellipses, and the functions of a semicolon.

UPDATE (November 1, 2012): Mark Nichol, editor of the Daily Writing Tips blog, answers reader queries about the hyphen here.

UPDATE (November 7, 2012): Mark Nichol responds to reader queries about another troublesome punctuation mark, the comma: "Answers to Questions About Commas". Also read: "Three Common Comma Errors" and "The Rationale for the Serial Comma".

UPDATE (February 12, 2013): Read all about the usage of apostrophes in this Mint column by V.R. Narayanaswami: "Aspects of the Apostrophe".

UPDATE (March 14, 2013): In one post, everything you need to know about punctuating a sentence. Check it out here.

You still don't have a blog?

Mark Nichol, writing on the Daily Writing Tips blog, gives you seven reasons to begin publishing your own blog right away.

I particularly endorse Reason No. 7:

Your blog provides you with a forum for developing your communication skills — not just writing but also video and audio, as well as interactivity such as networking, commenting on other websites and blogs, and responding to comments on your blog.

Read the column in its entirety here: "7 reasons to publish a blog".

• Also read: "Some great advice for first-time bloggers".

Chris Cleave proves his mettle with "Gold", his third consecutive bestseller

She tried to smile back. The smile came out like a newborn foal — its legs buckled immediately.

When you come across these lines on Page 2 of the novel you're reading, you know you have a terrific book in your hands.

Here is another passage that had me marvelling at the author's powers of description:

He heard their footsteps in the hall and he looked towards the bathroom door, preparing the wry grin he was going to use when they entered. Then, on the far side of the bathroom, he saw his partial denture standing in three inches of Listerine in its glass on the side of the basin; the six front upper teeth, moulded in acrylic and stained progressively over the years to match his real teeth. His stomach lurched. He pushed his tongue to the front of his palate and found the concavity there, with its twin surgical pegs that docked with the denture. He didn't know what he had been hoping for — that his teeth might be in two places at once, simultaneously there in the glass and here in his mouth. Somewhere in his mind his front teeth were scattered white seeds on the boards of a velodrome track. But Christ, he didn't want that memory.

Seeing his falsies in the glass gave him a desperate strength, and he hauled up again on the sides of the bath. This time he was able to heave himself over the rim. He collapsed on the floor like wet meat and dragged himself to the basin, racing the girls' footfalls as they came up the hallway. The gap in his teeth was a nakedness worse than nudity. He went faster, dragging his useless legs across the lines in the linoleum, and he felt every tenth of every second cutting into him.

He heard the bathroom door opening just as his hand reached up and found his denture. He grabbed it, brought it to his mouth and fumbled it with his freezing hands. It bounced off the rim of the sink and spun through the air. It sank, with the discreet splash of a near-perfect dive, into the toilet bowl.

This is the kind of brilliant writing that makes a book a page-turner. As soon as I am done with Gold, which should be soon, I plan to look for Chris Cleave's previous two novels, The Other Hand and Incendiary, both of which were bestsellers.

• Visit Chris Cleave's website here.

Bad grammar, poor punctuation: a sure recipe for disaster at your workplace

Yes, I am a Grammar Nazi.

That is why, in 2010, I posted 50 rants on Facebook, at the rate of one rant a day.

That is why, last month, I published a post — based on a Harvard Business Review article — on why good grammar is important for everyone, not just journalists.

And that is why I am now suggesting that every young person should read a feature on grammar gaffes that appeared in Mint recently.

It may be cool to use the latest lingo, the article asserts, but bad grammar and poor punctuation at the workplace could puncture your chances of getting a great job or a coveted promotion.

Here's the business head (south) of Titan Industries, Suparna Mitra, making a relevant point:

The quality of language today has become pathetic. Youngsters, even from premier business institutes, just don’t have a feel for the language.

Mitra says she finds even so-called communication experts like PR agencies sending out press releases riddled with grammatical and punctuation errors.

Sangeeta Singh of KPMG is just as scathing:

Today, the English language is being attacked on many fronts. Gen Y has converted English into a whole new language — LOL (Laugh out Loud), WUD (What U doing ), CU (See you) — ably aided by new social media and technology!

And banker-turned-corporate trainer Tarini Vaidya explains how grammatical errors have the potential for economic and other serious consequences

It was so stressful when I was a CXO with approval authority. Often an email would say, ‘Once we will credited the amount in our bank, update you for the same?’ It took me several minutes to completely understand what I had been told. Another sample: ‘Please approval for prematuring deposit. Customer want urgently demand draft for payment.’ I’d pray I wasn’t giving approvals to somebody wanting to sell the bank or do something illegal.

Vaidya adds that poorly constructed sentences, jumbled tenses, and missed keywords could have serious consequences, quite apart from the poor impression they create of the writers of these muddled missives.

Vaidya also has a meaningful message for young people out there:

Do not take pride in your incorrect English.

Read the article in its entirety here: "Grammar gaffes".

• Meanwhile, I am grateful to Commitscion Supriya Srivastav (Class of 2011), for posting on my Facebook wall a link to this hilarious yet very instructive "Word Crimes" video on YouTube: 

So, did you learn something from watching that video? I sure hope so. :-)

ADDITIONAL READING:

• Mint also features a regular column on English usage by a former professor of English, V.R. Narayanaswami: "Plain Speaking".

• Also read: "20 questions you must ask yourself before you hit the 'Send' button".

• "We cannot help associating 'bad' grammar with low intelligence, sloppiness and lack of refinement." True? Read on: Good Applicants With Bad Grammar. Join the debate.

• Illustration courtesy: Wiktionary

Reading this book will change your approach to life

Like me, you must have asked yourself these questions many times over the years:

• How can I be sure that I will find satisfaction in my career?

• How can I be sure that my personal relationships will become enduring sources of happiness?

• How can I avoid compromising my integrity?

Unbelievable as it sounds, there is a book that not only provides the answers to these questions but also explains, with the help of real-life examples, how you can find fulfillment.

Slim in size (206 pages) but big on ideas, How Will You Measure Your Life? does not offer, in the words of the authors, simplistic answers: "It will not tell you what to think. It will not prescribe a set path for happiness." Instead, the authors say, it will equip you to lead the type of life to which you truly aspire.

Here's an apt excerpt from the opening chapter:

People often think that the best way to predict the future is by collecting as much data as possible before making a decision. But this is like driving a car looking only at the rear-view mirror — because data is only available about the past.

Indeed, while experiences and information can be good teachers, there are many times in life where we simply cannot afford to learn on the job. You don't have to go through multiple marriages to learn how to be a good spouse. Or wait until your last child has grown to master parenthood. This is why theory can be so valuable: it can explain what will happen, even before you experience it.

What an insightful illustration that is of how the theories this book propounds can help us in our lives!

Now here's an excerpt from the first section, "Finding Happiness in Your Career":

The starting point for our journey is a discussion of priorities. These are, in effect, your core decision-making criteria: what's most important to you in your career? The problem is that what we think matters most in our jobs often does not align with what will really make us happy. Even worse, we don't notice that gap until it's too late. To help you avoid this mistake, I want to discuss the best research we have on what truly motivates people.

In the next chapter comes an intriguing examination of what it is that really makes us tick, followed by a fascinating debate on "incentive" versus "motivation". By the time we come to the end of the chapter, we understand clearly why motivation trumps incentive every time and why motivated people truly love their work more than anyone else.

WATCH A VIDEO Q&A WITH AUTHOR CLAYTON M. CHRISTENSEN HERE.

Section 2 deals with "Finding Happiness in Your Relationships". Here's a relevant excerpt from the introductory chapter:

[There] is much more to life than your career. The person you are at work and the amount of time you spend there will impact the person you are outside of work with your family and close friends. In my experience, high-achievers focus a great deal on becoming the person they want to be at work — and far too little on the person they want to be at home. Investing our time and energy in raising wonderful children or deepening our love with our spouse often doesn't return clear evidence of success for many years. What this leads to is over-investing in our careers, and under-investing in our families — starving one of the most important parts of our life of the resources it needs to flourish.

The third and final section, which is also the shortest, is devoted to the topic of "living a life of integrity". Titled "Staying Out of Jail" (how appropriate!), this section offers a theory called "full versus marginal thinking". This theory, the authors say, will help you answer your final question: how can I be sure I live a life of integrity?

And, finally, here's a quote from the book that, I hope, will motivate you to pick it up ASAP:

It is frightfully easy for us to lose our sense of the difference between what brings money and what causes happiness.

If you read only one book this year, or over the next ten years, let it be this one. Especially if you are young and have embarked, or are about to embark, on a career and a relationship. (How Will You Measure Your Life? is available on Indiaplaza for Rs.259.)

• Also read: If you love what you do, is it 'work'?

• UPDATE (April 3, 2013): How Will You Measure Your Life? has been given top billing in the latest issue of Forbes Life. Charles Assisi, managing editor of Forbes India, writes in an article titled "Happy Reading" that the first book "I think is mandatory reading is How Will You Measure Your Life? by Clayton Christensen". The other books on Assisi's list are Howard's Gift, by Eric Sinoway; The Happiness Hypothesis, by Jonathan Haidt; The Thinking Life, by P.M. Forni; and Mastery, by Robert Greene.

"This was just the book I needed"

By Commitscion Archita Nadgouda (Class of 2011)

ARCHITA NADGOUDA

I ordered How Will You Measure Your Life? from Indiaplaza as soon as I read your post on Facebook. This was just the book I needed at this point of time when I’m embarking on a new relationship and planning a new career. There is no shortage of people willing to dispense advice but, often, you're not completely convinced with the advice you get from them.

This book teaches you "how to think" and apply your own mind, based on the situation you are in, to find solutions because "one size fits all" doesn't work when it comes to advice.

I cannot thank you enough for recommending this book to us!

Draft — an amazing New York Times blog about writing

The New York Times, one of the world's greatest newspapers, publishes a brilliant blog, "Draft", which "features essays ... on the art of writing — from the comma to the tweet to the novel — and why a well-crafted sentence matters more than ever in the digital age."

The topics alone made my mouth water. And I learnt much from reading each post. So will you:

Where Do Sentences Come From?

The Point of Exclamation

The Power and Glory of Sportswriting

Zombie Nouns

What Is Real Is Imagined

A Matter of Fashion

Semicolons: A Love Story 

There is more, much more, to salivate over. Check out "Draft" now.

• Also read: "What our newspapers can learn from The New York Times".

How valid is this critique of our television journalists?

[Our] TV channels and media houses do not invest in training young people in ethical journalism. They do not provide them the resources and the time to do proper homework. Too many young people taking to this profession think that as long as they can talk glibly and emote powerfully, they have done their job well. They are not trained to handle responses they did not expect. That is why very few anchors allow diversity of views to come through. Even judges — whose job it is to judge and pass verdicts — are not as judgmental as are some of our news reporters and TV anchors. They really get angry and start bullying and hectoring if someone takes a position they are not prepared for or expresses an opinion which has been declared politically incorrect. Some of our journalists have taken on the activist mantle even more seriously than full-time activists.

I am not against journalists being involved in issues and taking sides. But when they wear the journalistic hat, they have to learn to allow a free and fair discussion and let diverse shades of opinion to come through so that viewers and readers can make an informed choice.

But most importantly, our media houses do not provide space, time and resources for real research, investigations and informed debates. Most of the exposés of corruption and mismanagement are leaks by rival politicians and bureaucrats. The problem is even more serious with TV channels than print journalism. That is why most of TV news programmes simply cull out sensational news items from the morning papers, get a little bit of visual footage of the same and spend hours on end getting the same limited set of people to comment and emote on those news items — be it a child who has fallen into a borewell or a group of lumpens attacking young women in a pub or a case of police atrocity.

— Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi, in an interview with Tehelka. Kishwar, who is often invited by TV news channels to take part in panel discussions, recently wrote an angry two-part open letter to Times Now editor in chief Arnab Goswami. In this interview she tells Tehelka's Karuna John why she made her anger public.

• Read the full interview here: “I had to articulate what a lot of people were feeling but had not said”.

• Thank you, Natasha Rego, for the alert.