Can someone explain to me why the FCC needs to offer any money to TV stations regarding the upcoming spectrum sale? TV stations are allowed to use the public airwaves for free so why would they get any money?
Since I have the biggest skill in english in my office, I'm often called upon for fixing up official documents my workgroup publishes to the rest of the company. And so it happened today to settle a disagreement between my team-lead and the middle-management assistant who sits across from him and also is involved in our current project. She (the assistant) thought it should be "the tickets will still be working during the downtime" while the team-lead told her that correctly it should remain "the tickets will still be worked upon during the downtime".
Anyway, I tell them that "worked upon" is what they should go with, and the following exchange happened (freely translated from german):
Team-lead: Well, I guess I should have given you my thesis for correcting. Me: Don't think I that is something I would want to do with my free time. But I guess it depends on the compensation. Assistant: I was a poor student. I wouldn't have been able to pay you anything. Team-lead: But compensation doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. (pause) My thoughts being: "WTF?!" Team-lead(continuing): You could have baked him a cake or something.
Also middle aged women exist in a mental plain of their own. Here follows a conversation from today; Me - Im really sorry but our tills aren't working, we can take cash or contactless but not pin Im sorry. Middle aged woman 1 - So you can take cash and pin? Middle aged woman 2 - No he cant take cash or contactless, only pin Me - No sorry ladies its pin we can't accept at the moment MAW1 - So you can accept pin? Ok thats good Me - No not pin anything else but pin MAW2 - I dont think my card has pin. Me - It does all cards in the UK have that now MAW1 - So you can accept pin, jolly good. Me - No, we seem to have become confused lets start again. Our till system is not working at the moment. For what ever reason we can accept Cash or contactless payments but not Pin. So pretty much anything but pin, ok? MAW2 - so you accept pin then jolly good.
This then went on for anther 5 minuets as I tried to explain this to them. Other people in the queue got involved. I nearly drew diagrams but these two people would not get it. At one point I boiled it down to "Cash good, Contactless good, Pin bad!" with faces and everything, and it still did not get through to them.
You can only pay by cash or contactless today. I've been in situations similar to these, just give the options allowed and don't give extra information.
The customer doesn't need to know why unless they ask.
As soon as you've identified that a person has limited information parsing capabilities, you have to give the bare minimum. No explanation, no setup, no commas or semicolons. "Cash or Contactless only." Otherwise they get permanently confused.
Remember that only 15% of adult Americans are fully literate. "21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."" I doubt the statistics are that different in the UK.
I oft wonder if literacy is going up or down with the new generation(s) because of things like the internet, and our need to read and write and parse written words in an abundant number of formats and situations might be helping the literacy cause.
Then I remember that most places I go are small islands, in a sea of "u wat tho bae" and the 15% literacy figure seems about right.
Not a surprise to me, since I've been following it for a while now, but Buzzfeed's investigative journalism record:
Uncovered the swindler Chuck Blazer, hunted down Marc Collins-Rector, the heart of the Brian Singer scandal, told us the story of Ara Dolarian, arms dealer and major supplier of weaponry to war-torn regions, an investigation of how Abused partners have been turned into criminals by the US justice system, the story of massive bribes from the FBI to public officials, uncovering massive financial malfeasance by NSA officials, and the story of a Morgage Scammer who somehow managed to get a government contract for cleaning up Ebola, which in turn, is likely also a scam.
And here's words that in 2013, you would have laughed out of the room, but in 2015, would do so only if you don't know what's up - Buzzfeed is one of the best news outlets on the internet today.
I've heard BuzzFeed actually does try to do some quality reporting but it needs to sustain it with a list of ten things 90s kids forgot because they were fucking 10.
Anybody paying attention. You don't hire two Pulitzer prize winners, have one of your staff nominated, and hire two of the biggest swinging dicks from the NY and Washington news scenes without attracting some attention.
I've heard BuzzFeed actually does try to do some quality reporting but it needs to sustain it with a list of ten things 90s kids forgot because they were fucking 10.
That's basically it, though I'd say better than try, they succeed. They're one of the most consistently high-quality news outlets around at the moment. Their listicles provide the cash to fund their news department, and the news department doesn't have to worry about views, advertising, and so on.
A senior editor I work with occasionally commented a little while back about it - The newbies who dream of working at VICE, they're the ones that will burn out, give up, or go tabloid. (Definitely the last, if they end up at VICE) The ones you want to watch, the ones going places, they want to work at Buzzfeed.
What good is that reporting if the audience thinks you are no better than the Weekly World News?
The Audience doesn't think that, because to be the audience, you'd have to actually go there and at least look at it. The quality is evident even to people whose highest level of expertise on the topic is reddit-quality media critique.
Not to mention that it's irrelevant. It stands on it's own merits, if the "audience" is too busy circlejerking about the listicles that fund it, instead of actually going to the site and looking at it, then that's not really the outlet's problem nor a comment on the quality. At most, you can fault them for not advertising enough, but that's not really the responsibility of the newsroom, that's the marketing department.
Or they could have a completely separate domain for the real news to keep it from being contaminated by the junk on buzzfeed? It's the same thing with huffpo. They spent so long as scrapers that their name is tainted. They could discover proof of gods existence and it would be assumed to either be garbage or scraped from some other site.
I would assume because building up name brand is incredibly difficult.
That's pretty much the answer. If they break away, they have to build a new brand, which is enormously difficult to pull off successfully, and if they're linked back to buzzfeed - which they would be eventually - then all that work is pointless, they're back to square one. Might as well just save the time and money.
Edit - I should also note, I heard about this from Someone at Buzzfeed Australia, but apparently they did investigate that option, but it turned out to not make sense financially or in marketing terms, for that reason.
They don't have to break away, they can follow what groups like Gawker do with different sites all under the same flag that cater to different interests.
If their original news and investigative reporting division is truly not bound by revenue and eyeball numbers why would they care about those issues?
They don't have to break away, they can follow what groups like Gawker do with different sites all under the same flag that cater to different interests.
If their original news and investigative reporting division is truly not bound by revenue and eyeball numbers why would they care about those issues?
Hey man, you're the one that asked why they didn't go to a separate domain to stop them being contaminated by the rest of buzzfeed. I was just telling you the reason why.
A brand is a powerful thing to have. A brand opens doors, and views do have a use, just not the use that many other sites worry about - people want to give their story to someone with a known name. That's why VICE can open doors, but myself as a freelancer can have trouble if I'm not working a commissioned piece. Nobody wants to talk to the bumblefuck nowhere advertiser, but the New York Times, that's a name that opens doors and mouths.
You know, I don't actually know. But, I can certainly ask, if you'd like to know?
Though, I will say, the problem with important people isn't really there. That same problem mostly comes up with not-important people - Important people, if you're seeking an interview, you often have to interact with their people, who will check up and find out about your outlet, if they don't know already. Regular folk, they don't have that, and are more likely to reject you based on who you're working for - I've been knocked back for interviews occasionally, when under commission from Murdoch papers. Though, on those few occasions, almost every time I've managed to talk them round.
I am very curious to know how it works and how it pans out. In my case someone telling me they work for buzzfeed tells me that they are a tabloid journalist at best and possibly just a quack who writes clickbait at worst. The ambulance chasers of the journalistic world if you will.
I am trying to think of a single website that has come back from clickbait memes to being respectable and I can not think of one.
I am very curious to know how it works and how it pans out. In my case someone telling me they work for buzzfeed tells me that they are a tabloid journalist at best and possibly just a quack who writes clickbait at worst. The ambulance chasers of the journalistic world if you will.
I am trying to think of a single website that has come back from clickbait memes to being respectable and I can not think of one.
Like I said, dude, two Pulitzer prize winners, and one employee nominated while working there. If you're a Pulizer winner, you can practically write your own paycheques from any news org on the planet, that alone is a pretty good indicator that they've got something going on.
Doesn't make their listicles any better, but the news section is good enough that it's one of the few I'd recommend without really needing any caveats.
I am very curious to know how it works and how it pans out. In my case someone telling me they work for buzzfeed tells me that they are a tabloid journalist at best and possibly just a quack who writes clickbait at worst. The ambulance chasers of the journalistic world if you will.
I am trying to think of a single website that has come back from clickbait memes to being respectable and I can not think of one.
Well for one, I don't think any of their clickbait style content has ever required that someone be interviewed, they also don't really release anything close to a tabloid. They're generally opinion pieces.
For another, if you were unaware they wrote serious articles until just now then perhaps if you read one you'd have more faith in their journalistic integrity. I imagine this is how they get around people thinking they don't do serious journalism as well.
Oh hey, I have something interesting about buzzfeed's content - It's not Clickbait. It's crap, sure, but it's not clickbait.
It's sounds absolutely insane, but it's true, stick with me.
One of the biggest things about clickbait is that it doesn't deliver as promised. For example, "What this regular guy does with this street piano will leave you sobbing!" The article itself contains a video of a professional pianist, in a planned advertisement, playing a piano in a train station rather well, though admittedly it's a pretty standard piano piece that he's playing, hardly enough to move even the most sensitive of souls to tears. Or alternatively, "This Reclusive engineer has Revolutionized fusion power in his basement", when he's isn't reclusive, isn't an engineer, and he's certainly not revolutionized fusion power, or even discovered something new.
Now, that's now how they do it at Buzzfeed. I'll grant you, the ideas behind their articles are fucking stupid. But if you click an article that says, say, "17 Cupcakes that represent people you know", that's incredibly stupid of a concept, but damned if the article doesn't have 17 pictures of cupcakes, and small blurbs under each where the Author explains why they think these cupcakes represents people you probably know. It may be dumb, but it delivers, and by that virtue, it's not clickbait.
I refuse to use the marketing-wank term that buzzfeed use for it - "Highly sharable content" - so I just go with "Listicles." Partially because it's a good Portmanteau of "List" and "article", and partially because it sounds a bit like testicles and I am an enormous child.
Now, there's no reason that "Listicles" should have any better connotations than clickbait - in fact, it's just as bad. Cheap, low-effort content that draws eyeballs and delivers something absolutely, utterly stupid. But, it delivers.
It's sort of like a 58 Edsel, and an 85 Yugo GV - They're both fucking garbage cars, but the fact that they're both garbage does not mean that an Edsel is a Yugo. They're both terrible for their own reasons.
I will grant your distinction between clickbait and listicles. I typically consider any headline that uses lots of adjectives without telling you anything about the content to be clickbait "this guy did X and you won't believe what happened next!!!" There are also a lot of listicle type articles out there that do not deliver on their headline or deliver very poorly.
You also have a lot of sites that just spit ads at you like a diaretic elephant. Most folks on here use adblock so you may not see the utter horrors out there. I have only been to buzzfeed on my phone so I can only judge based on that experience. I did filter to their news section but didn't see anything compelling or special. Is there a particular area or article I should be looking for to be impressed?
Well, yeah - It's not mutually exclusive. Buzzfeed, for quite some time now, have had strict policy on that you must deliver what your headline says, but they're pretty much alone in that.
You also have a lot of sites that just spit ads at you like a diaretic elephant. Most folks on here use adblock so you may not see the utter horrors out there. I have only been to buzzfeed on my phone so I can only judge based on that experience. I did filter to their news section but didn't see anything compelling or special. Is there a particular area or article I should be looking for to be impressed?
Oh yeah, I don't look at Buzzfeed on my phone, except in my RSS reader.
That said, it's a matter of overall quality. Low bias, well researched, pretty well written, comprehensive.
Comments
Anyway, I tell them that "worked upon" is what they should go with, and the following exchange happened (freely translated from german):
Team-lead: Well, I guess I should have given you my thesis for correcting.
Me: Don't think I that is something I would want to do with my free time. But I guess it depends on the compensation.
Assistant: I was a poor student. I wouldn't have been able to pay you anything.
Team-lead: But compensation doesn't necessarily have to be monetary.
(pause) My thoughts being: "WTF?!"
Team-lead(continuing): You could have baked him a cake or something.
Also middle aged women exist in a mental plain of their own. Here follows a conversation from today;
Me - Im really sorry but our tills aren't working, we can take cash or contactless but not pin Im sorry.
Middle aged woman 1 - So you can take cash and pin?
Middle aged woman 2 - No he cant take cash or contactless, only pin
Me - No sorry ladies its pin we can't accept at the moment
MAW1 - So you can accept pin? Ok thats good
Me - No not pin anything else but pin
MAW2 - I dont think my card has pin.
Me - It does all cards in the UK have that now
MAW1 - So you can accept pin, jolly good.
Me - No, we seem to have become confused lets start again. Our till system is not working at the moment. For what ever reason we can accept Cash or contactless payments but not Pin. So pretty much anything but pin, ok?
MAW2 - so you accept pin then jolly good.
This then went on for anther 5 minuets as I tried to explain this to them. Other people in the queue got involved. I nearly drew diagrams but these two people would not get it. At one point I boiled it down to "Cash good, Contactless good, Pin bad!" with faces and everything, and it still did not get through to them.
I've been in situations similar to these, just give the options allowed and don't give extra information.
The customer doesn't need to know why unless they ask.
As soon as you've identified that a person has limited information parsing capabilities, you have to give the bare minimum. No explanation, no setup, no commas or semicolons. "Cash or Contactless only." Otherwise they get permanently confused.
Remember that only 15% of adult Americans are fully literate. "21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."" I doubt the statistics are that different in the UK.
Or (hope against hope), they were trolling you.
Then I remember that most places I go are small islands, in a sea of "u wat tho bae" and the 15% literacy figure seems about right.
Uncovered the swindler Chuck Blazer, hunted down Marc Collins-Rector, the heart of the Brian Singer scandal, told us the story of Ara Dolarian, arms dealer and major supplier of weaponry to war-torn regions, an investigation of how Abused partners have been turned into criminals by the US justice system, the story of massive bribes from the FBI to public officials, uncovering massive financial malfeasance by NSA officials, and the story of a Morgage Scammer who somehow managed to get a government contract for cleaning up Ebola, which in turn, is likely also a scam.
And here's words that in 2013, you would have laughed out of the room, but in 2015, would do so only if you don't know what's up - Buzzfeed is one of the best news outlets on the internet today.
A senior editor I work with occasionally commented a little while back about it - The newbies who dream of working at VICE, they're the ones that will burn out, give up, or go tabloid. (Definitely the last, if they end up at VICE) The ones you want to watch, the ones going places, they want to work at Buzzfeed.
Not to mention that it's irrelevant. It stands on it's own merits, if the "audience" is too busy circlejerking about the listicles that fund it, instead of actually going to the site and looking at it, then that's not really the outlet's problem nor a comment on the quality. At most, you can fault them for not advertising enough, but that's not really the responsibility of the newsroom, that's the marketing department.
Edit - I should also note, I heard about this from Someone at Buzzfeed Australia, but apparently they did investigate that option, but it turned out to not make sense financially or in marketing terms, for that reason.
If their original news and investigative reporting division is truly not bound by revenue and eyeball numbers why would they care about those issues?
A brand is a powerful thing to have. A brand opens doors, and views do have a use, just not the use that many other sites worry about - people want to give their story to someone with a known name. That's why VICE can open doors, but myself as a freelancer can have trouble if I'm not working a commissioned piece. Nobody wants to talk to the bumblefuck nowhere advertiser, but the New York Times, that's a name that opens doors and mouths.
Journalist : hello important person, I am from buzzfeed.
Important person : I don't own any cats.
J : no, not here about cats....
Though, I will say, the problem with important people isn't really there. That same problem mostly comes up with not-important people - Important people, if you're seeking an interview, you often have to interact with their people, who will check up and find out about your outlet, if they don't know already. Regular folk, they don't have that, and are more likely to reject you based on who you're working for - I've been knocked back for interviews occasionally, when under commission from Murdoch papers. Though, on those few occasions, almost every time I've managed to talk them round.
I am trying to think of a single website that has come back from clickbait memes to being respectable and I can not think of one.
Doesn't make their listicles any better, but the news section is good enough that it's one of the few I'd recommend without really needing any caveats.
For another, if you were unaware they wrote serious articles until just now then perhaps if you read one you'd have more faith in their journalistic integrity. I imagine this is how they get around people thinking they don't do serious journalism as well.
It's sounds absolutely insane, but it's true, stick with me.
One of the biggest things about clickbait is that it doesn't deliver as promised. For example, "What this regular guy does with this street piano will leave you sobbing!" The article itself contains a video of a professional pianist, in a planned advertisement, playing a piano in a train station rather well, though admittedly it's a pretty standard piano piece that he's playing, hardly enough to move even the most sensitive of souls to tears. Or alternatively, "This Reclusive engineer has Revolutionized fusion power in his basement", when he's isn't reclusive, isn't an engineer, and he's certainly not revolutionized fusion power, or even discovered something new.
Now, that's now how they do it at Buzzfeed. I'll grant you, the ideas behind their articles are fucking stupid. But if you click an article that says, say, "17 Cupcakes that represent people you know", that's incredibly stupid of a concept, but damned if the article doesn't have 17 pictures of cupcakes, and small blurbs under each where the Author explains why they think these cupcakes represents people you probably know. It may be dumb, but it delivers, and by that virtue, it's not clickbait.
I refuse to use the marketing-wank term that buzzfeed use for it - "Highly sharable content" - so I just go with "Listicles." Partially because it's a good Portmanteau of "List" and "article", and partially because it sounds a bit like testicles and I am an enormous child.
Now, there's no reason that "Listicles" should have any better connotations than clickbait - in fact, it's just as bad. Cheap, low-effort content that draws eyeballs and delivers something absolutely, utterly stupid. But, it delivers.
It's sort of like a 58 Edsel, and an 85 Yugo GV - They're both fucking garbage cars, but the fact that they're both garbage does not mean that an Edsel is a Yugo. They're both terrible for their own reasons.
You also have a lot of sites that just spit ads at you like a diaretic elephant. Most folks on here use adblock so you may not see the utter horrors out there. I have only been to buzzfeed on my phone so I can only judge based on that experience. I did filter to their news section but didn't see anything compelling or special. Is there a particular area or article I should be looking for to be impressed?
That said, it's a matter of overall quality. Low bias, well researched, pretty well written, comprehensive.
If you want a highlight reel of last year - and really, they knocked it out of the park last year - For lack of time to go digging back through to find my favorites, here's three lists - Best of investigations, Best of Personal essays, Best of Feature articles.