Faulty Study Left Uncorrected

It's hard to admit you made a mistake. Daniel Klein, an economics professor at George Mason University, can tell you that, but he can also tell you how to move past it. Klein wrote an opinion column over a year ago saying that liberals score much lower than conservatives on a test over basic economics, according to his newest study. He published his column in the Wall Street Journal, which headlined: "Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader? Self-indentified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics".
Klein later took a second look at his data and concluded that his questions were loaded, or followed what he termed the "myside bias"- human's tendency to judge an argument based off of how closely it fits to their standard political views. Klein recently recanted his earlier findings and published the new results- but not in the Wall Street Journal. The Columbia Journalism Review emailed Klein asking why the new column appeared in the Atlantic instead of WSJ, and he responded that they had "declined the idea of a follow-up".

But shouldn't that be considered irresponsible journalism? The well-respected journal now has full knowledge that it ran an erroneous article, and the author is stepping up of his own free will to correct his past mistake. For the Wall Street Journal to decline the corrections is a loss of responsibility to their readers, some of which will never see the corrections simply because they don't read the Atlantic. The editors need to swallow their pride and put their reader's needs first.

Photo credit/creativecommons.org

Read more...

AP Style Changes as Language Evolves

In a recent article published by the Columbia Journalism Review there are many new changes to the AP Stylebook brought to the readers attention.

Many of the new changes have to do with frequent use of words that correlate with technology. What used to be e-mail is now email and what used to be smart phones, hand helds, or cell phones is now smartphones, handhelds, and cellphones.

The Associated Press Stylebook, announced these changes as well as others at the annual conference of the American Copy Editors Society.

Even as I type this blog on my new laptop these new styles are popping up wrong on my spell check. This just goes to show the constant changes that language is undergoing.

Many changes like these have been adapted due to the increase in use of the words. Words like smartphone, cellphone, email, and handheld were not frequently used in the past, but are now used in everyday conversation. Because these words are more frequently used they become an issue to the AP Stylebook.

However, students and professionals alike should remember that the AP Stylebook and Webster’s New World College Dictionary are not the same and many things now accepted by the AP Stylebook are not yet accepted by Webster's New World College Dictionary.

Students looking to stay updated on AP Stylebook changes can visit their website or follow them on Twitter at @APStylebook.

Photo Credit: allaboutgeorge on Flickr.com via Creative Commons

Read more...

The New Newsweek

On Monday, March 7, Newsweek hit newsstands with what they hoped would be a fresh new look.

Dirk Barnett, who came to Newsweek from Maxim magazine, is trying to take Newsweek in a new design direction.

The new design is focused more on photos. The old Newsweek lacked the visual appeal of many magazines, and therefore had a hard time attracting readers that are more visual readers.

Although the company had good intentions, the feedback about the new Newsweek has been almost brutal.

In an article published by Columbia Journalism Review, the quotes presented are all negative towards the new Newsweek design. The New York Post stated, "New Newsweek hits streets with a whimper."

Others have been even more harsh on the new design. An editor of The Awl, Choire Sicha, voiced his opinion by saying, "Mmm, it’s like soaking in a nice warm bath of a comfortable yesterday." He then goes on very bluntly, talking about how even the new Newsweek appears to be geared toward 40-some year olds in the doctor's waiting room.

Even though this criticism may be accurate, the new design is still a visual improvement from before. The magazine isn't going to recover overnight, and this is a big step in the right direction

To view some of the new pages of Newsweek click here.

Photo credit: FontShop via Flickr on Creative Commons

Read more...

Fallout Due to Authoritarian Action

In November of 2009, Kurt Greenbaum, an editor for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch tracked down an anonymous commenter on the newspaper's Web site, who posted a vulgar response dealing with the female anatomy to the "Talk of the Day" feature. Greenbaum then informed the commenter's employer of the vulgar response, who subsequently fired the employee. Lastly, Greenbaum documented this story in his blog and on Twitter.

At the time, Greenbaum could not have expect the type of negative reaction his actions would cause. However, in the four months since, Greenbaum has faced widespread criticism, especially on the Web. Thursday, in an article for the Columbia Journalism Review, writer Justin Peters examined the fallout from the incident and its implications for the future of journalism.

As Peters pointed out, most of the overall anger directed towards Greenbaum stems from question, what led him to believe he had the authority to censor the Web site? This question points to the shifting nature of journalism. No longer, do newspapers have the authority to control readers' attitudes the way they could in the past. In the past, newspapers established authority by sifting through news and deciding what stories to publish. In turn, they set a standard for the appropriateness of certain topics among the paper's community. Readers had little access to other news resources, which forced them to adhere to the standard.

Over the past several years, however, and with the development of the Web and forces such as social media, readers have found new mediums of news consumption. In addition, they have become better equipped to participate in a more democratic format of media. With this new format, those who participate now expect greater power to set standards for conversation, making Greenbaum's actions, in which one person/entity controls and censors the conversation seem to authoritarian. Also, readers and community members have become more empowered to form their own "news organizations," in this case a Web site dedicated to criticizing Greenbaum.

Currently, I'm rather split on this issue. On one hand, I understand Greenbaum's actions and that preserving the integrity of organization's Web site may have necessitated the removal of the comment. However, in the end, I agree that on an ethical level, Greenbaum was wrong to go above the democratic process to censor material he disagreed with. His actions set a precedent that this kind of behavior is acceptable for news organizations and in the future, the public will have to be responsible to hold organizations accountable in similar circumstances.

Read more...

No Excuses For Mistakes

Writers and journalists constantly battle with mistakes and typos. Locating and correcting these mistakes can take time and to remain efficient writers depend heavily on sometimes inadequate or unreliable methods of locating and correcting mistakes. However, recent technological developments are allowing mistakes to be corrected with greater efficiency and accuracy. An article by Craig Silverman published today in the Columbia Journalism Review introduces and reviews three new applications that are being developed and used to ensure readers the highest quality of writing possible, free from mistakes and typos.

An innovative new application by gooseGrade, soon to be Editz.com, allows writers and readers to work together to fix errors found in online content. By an administrator applying the gooseGrade application to a website, a reader can identify errors in a three step process: first by highlighting the error, second by identifying the type (spelling, punctuation), and third by correcting the error in a text box. The administrator can then correct the error based on the request. Currently available for any website or blog, this technology offers a huge benefit for major news organizations, who are plagued by numerous errors and typos in their online content, and often cannot find the time or manpower to review and correct the content.

Another technology currently being developed brings a social networking aspect to the proofreading process. Called Bite-Size Edits, this website is made up of writers who've created an account and who collectively edit the content uploaded to the site. When a writer uploads the content, the website breaks it down into "bite-sized" pieces and sends it to other users, guaranteeing that each piece of text gets reviewed by two other users. While its creators understand that this does not replace a thorough, final proofreading of a document, they advocate that it offers a fast way to be proofread and could be an effective tool in the editing process.

These new applications certainly have the possibility to ease a portion of the burden from writers and journalists, and could allow news organizations to produce online content of a higher quality. I agree that journalists should become familiar with these new applications, however, we can never lose the importance of old-fashioned proofreading. If anything, these new technologies simply hold us to a higher standard of excellence within our writing, in which several steps of proofreading and revising will be required.

Read more...