The Thursday Three #16

  1. I changed my idea for NaNoWriMo. Instead of trying to finish what I started in April’s Camp NaNo, I’m going to start something completely different. So I chose some characters from my 2010 “novel,” plus another character from a story I wrote a really long time ago. Now it’s just a matter of figuring out how I can best ruin their lives (i.e., create a plot).
  2. A post on Ally’s blog got me thinking about the death of journalism. If you consider blogs and social media sites to be “journalism,” as some do, then journalism is certainly alive and well, but the mainstream media is absolutely not as objective as it used to be (well, if it ever was objective in the first place). So what people are calling the death of journalism is really the death of an objective, unbiased source of information.
  3. The Grammarly proofreading app has ranked the 2016 presidential candidates by how well their supporters use the English language. Bear in mind that Grammarly’s data are all from Facebook posts, which may not be very representative of how these people write in the “real world” or how intelligent they are, but it is kind of amusing. This may also be a display of how passionate the supporters are about their chosen candidate, as the more angry or enthusiastic you are, the less likely you are to think about grammar when debating online. 🙂

5 thoughts on “The Thursday Three #16

  1. The thing about “objective journalism” is that there is really no such thing, but you can do some great and important work if that’s your (always slightly out of reach) goal. I often think of how the current news landscape would have annoyed my father. He was always on the lookout for bias, in all the different ways he got news (newspapers, magazines, television, radio).

    One time he was reading the New York Times, and there was a page where they had two columns, interviewing a liberal and a conservative on some question, and my father objected to how the conservative was described (his physical appearance). He wrote an angry letter to the editor, and received an apology in response.

    The point is, my father disagreed strongly with what the conservative person was saying, but he objected to the reader possibly being influenced by the description of what the man looked like. And the editor was devoted enough to the goal of objective jouralism that he admitted the mistake.


    1. That reminds me of when my local newspaper was constantly publishing political cartoons making fun of conservatives. Someone finally complained about it, and ever since then, there has been more of a balance (everyone gets made fun of equally). So… there is hope!


Comments are closed.