Democracy. Right.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Wouldn't it be great if people used their real names, even though we encourage them to be anonymous and take no responsibility for the things they post on our website?

I really, really hate "reader comments" on newspaper articles. It's hard for me to say that, because comments are the best thing about some blogs. For some reason, comment sections on mainstream media sites are a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

The Paper of Record's technology columnist, Matthew Ingram, mentions this briefly in yesterday's -- well, I guess it's a blog post. (The Paper of Record is totally "with it" and "groovy", so they have blogs now.) He says it would be nice if people used their real names. Then he quotes the idiot commenters, whether they use their real names or not, and whether they have anything to say or not. I guess that doesn't matter. The point is that they said it on the Paper of Record's website. Got it? The Paper of Record is TOTALLY COOL. You can write any stupid thing you want on their site. It's all about democracy, or so Mr. Ingram says.

To be honest, I don't know why anyone would use his real name on the Paper of Record's site. Why bother, when you can say what you're REALLY thinking and never be held accountable? These comment sections are full of bile. They almost never provide any extra information that would help me to function in a free society. You'll recall that that is the purpose of journalism.

The other day, someone who works for a national Canadian news organization told me that her employer allows uncensored comments because people want to have a voice. (Kids today!) While I certainly applaud their efforts, I cannot help but think that it is a failed experiment.

No reporter at the Paper of Record would interview someone who insisted on being identified as Great Southwest or Some Guy. It wouldn't even occur to the reporter to suggest it to his editor.

Reporters put a lot of effort into getting good quotes and checking on sources. That's because they are responsible for the things they publish or broadcast. Anonymous comments are usually stupid, and they're impossible to verify. They don't suddenly become news just because they're posted on the Internet.

In fact, I'm not aware of many news organizations that publish anonymous letters to the editor. CBC doesn't broadcast anonymous TalkBack or put anyone on air who won't give his name. Why would the standards be any different for cbc.ca?

I'd like it if news sites made it easier to track who is blogging about the news. CNN is already doing this, and it seems to be working well. Blogs are often anonymous and even more often stupid, but they have a few things going for them:

1. They're not hosted on the Paper of Record's site: idiots don't get the satisfaction of having their offensive ideas published without editing on a website that should be respectable and respected.
   
   
2. They require some -- not much, but some -- responsibility from the people who write them. Usually, a blog is maintained over time, and the writer takes some pride in it.
   
   
3. They're easy to follow. In fact, people might be more likely to blog about issues in the news if they knew they would get traffic through the Paper of Record or the CBC. Some bloggers might even want to write about the paper every day.
   
   
4. They're easy to ignore if they're stupid: you just don't visit them.
   
   
5. They usually provide links, which news sites often covet.

It seems to me that this would be a better way to "track the conversation" about news stories, without opening the newspaper's publisher to libel and copyright issues. It wouldn't just be one conversation; it would be many. We could track entire threads instead of seeing all comments in the order they were posted to the site.

Perhaps I should suggest this to Mr. Ingram. I wonder if the Technology columnists Google themselves as often as the Arts columnists do.

You said you'd give me light, but you never told me about the fire

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Stop the presses! Somebody else made a mistake!

You may not believe it, but Name of Paper Withheld is suddenly very concerned about journalists' factual errors.

Yes, you read that correctly, but I didn't give you all of the information you need to make an assessment of this development, so don't jump to conclusions just yet.

They are very concerned about OTHER journalists' factual errors. Not their own.

Yeah, you can breathe again: The world has not turned completely upside down.

You see, a journalist from another country visited Name of Town Withheld and filed a story to a British publication. Name of Paper Withheld reports triumphantly that that story included some mistakes. For example, most residents do NOT heat their homes with wood. What a bunch of idiots those overseas guys must be!

Yes, this is quite a scoop. Hold the front page. Oh, you were already planning to put it on the front page? Carry on, then.

I've been away for almost a week, but I'm pretty sure this is a new approach to factual errors. They are apparently worthy of a new story that ridicules the original mistake. I guess Name of Paper Withheld won't mind if I casually skim the latest issue of the paper for errors, then. Maybe I'll find a decorative ellipsis.


UPDATED NOVEMBER 21: I have written a new post that deals with some of the concerns described in this post's comments section.

The normal flaws

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: I SHOULDN'T LOOK THE WAY I REALLY LOOK IN PICTURES! PHOTOJOURNALISTS SHOULD PRESENT AN INCORRECT IMAGE OF ME! YES, THEY SHOULD! YES, THEY SHOULD!

Before I start, I am going to acknowledge that I do not have nearly as much experience in photojournalism as some of my readers. I know that some of you are professional photographers, and I invite your responses. I personally have no more hands-on experience than anyone else who has worked as a reporter at a weekly newspaper, although I did take classes in photojournalism in j-school. I would not want to give anyone the impression that I have a lot of experience in this field.

Our friends at Fox News are very, very upset about this Newsweek cover. They think it makes Ms. Palin look terrible.


Yeah, I was confused, too. Ms. Palin is a former beauty queen; although I've been clear about the way I feel about her, I can't deny that she is attractive.

Apparently Fox News and the Republicans are furious, because this photo was not retouched.

Yeah, I'm still confused, too. The picture looks really nice to me. I don't see a need to retouch it. And even if it was a bad photo, retouching is against photojournalism ethics.

This clip has to be seen to be believed, but in case you're at work, here are some of the points the reporter (!!!) made:

• You can't actually see the problems on TV, so you'll have to trust her. (Actually, you shouldn't trust her. I've posted the photo, so you can see it for yourself.)
  
• Barack Obama was on Newsweek's cover and they literally put a halo on him. (No, they didn't. The image is backlit. You can see it clearly in this clip.)
• Any respectable magazine should be retouching its photos. THAT'S WHAT MAGAZINES DO. (Uh...not news magazines, dummy. You must be thinking of Cosmo.)
• Barack Obama looks perfect on ALL magazine covers! (Really? Are those wrinkles? Does he have a wart?)
• The article is really mean, but does offer a counter-point from Karl Rove. (I can't tell. Is this supposed to be a positive thing?)
  

This photo is obviously a clear slap in the face. Women are ugly in close-up shots, and everyone knows that! This photo highlights every imperfection. Any woman would be shocked and horrified. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is hot, hot, hot on all of the magazine covers. It's just not fair. What we need is MORE manipulation in the media so that people don't look the way they actually look.

I keep thinking that this is a joke, but apparently it's all real. I'll go really slowly, because, after all, it IS Fox News:

Ms. Palin is beautiful.

This photo is really nice.

Retouching news photos is unethical.

Photo editing is an art. Editors choose photos to tell a story, and some minor manipulation is allowed. For example, a photo can be cropped or blown up. It can be published in black & white instead of full colour. Some publications allow photos to be flipped; others do not. Combining or retouching photos is a definite no-no. Photo illustrations have to be clearly labelled. The fundamental principle is that news photos should accurately reflect a moment, even if they were taken in a photo shoot, like this one obviously was.

Photo editors also have a lot of freedom in selecting images: they are in no way required to choose photos that are flattering, although most try not to publish pictures that are ugly. This particular photo looks like it's from the same set as the cover shot from a few weeks ago:
This cover shot was also very nice, and I didn't hear any screaming about it. But then, that was before Ms. Palin showed herself to be one of the stupidest people I've ever seen in national politics.

Normally we don't see our female politicians as pin-up models who need every "flaw" to be airbrushed away, but apparently that's how Fox News and this disgusting Republican strategist see Ms. Palin. She's a celebrity who should be looked at, not listened to. It's an insult to publish photos of her unless they've been retouched.

I suspect that if Ms. Palin was capable of stringing a sentence together, nobody would care how pretty she is.

(H/T to Bloggasm.)

The apocalypse

Last week I was distracted by attacks on my personal and professional integrity, so I did not write about a pressing journalism issue that needs to be covered. I apologise and will get back to my normal blogging.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Holy crap, I agree with Russell Smith.

As loyal viewers of Fox News know, the Canadian government launched a shameful attack on Sarah Palin a few weeks ago. The ultra-left-wing Conservative government funds a state broadcaster called the CBC. (In an oh-so-liberal attempt to fool voters, the extreme liberals rebranded their party as "Conservative". Typical leftists.) The CBC speaks for the government. And that's why it's extremely offensive that they published a column that was very critical of Ms. Palin. How dare they?

Okay, here's what actually happened.

Heather Mallick is a Canadian columnist. She did indeed write a column that was very critical of Ms. Palin. It was over-the-top offensive, in fact. Some of it was clearly supposed to be funny, but other parts were completely inexcusable.

Ms. Mallick is not a CBC employee; she is a freelancer. This column was posted to CBC.ca, as have other columns she has written. Fox News went nuts, and its viewers sent hate mail to Ms. Mallick and the CBC.

The CBC stood behind Ms. Mallick at first, saying that she is an opinion columnist and her job is to express her opinions.

The ombudsman received over 300 complaints, and decided to investigate. He found that there were problems with the column, because it presumed to offer facts that could not be substantiated. "Facts" like these: Republican men are sexual inadequates! Ms. Palin's supporters are white trash!

The CBC caved. They apologised and retracted the column.

You may already see the problem with this. Ms. Mallick didn't actually mean that Republican men are sexual inadequates: it wasn't presented as a fact at all. Of course she had no substantiation for this. She was making a joke. A rude joke, to be sure, but a joke. I'm pretty sure that men don't have secret meetings in which they promise to be irresponsible with their semen, either.

OK, on to Russell Smith.

As long-time readers know, I have often criticised Russell for being self-important and long-winded. He, in turn, has criticised me for being a bitter, sad lady. However, today I actually agree with him. It's important to get this on the record, because he Googles himself constantly and will want this for his scrapbook.

Russell rightly points out that it is rare for a news organisation not to back a columnist after a controversy, and that many columnists receive hate mail. He also points out that anyone who disagreed with Ms. Mallick was given a public forum to do so. And he is correct to mention that the column was no ruder than things that have been said about Hillary Clinton.

Russell then suggests that the retraction is a sign of something far more troubling: the possibility that our national broadcaster will include more right-wing opinion pieces simply because of the hate mail from another country.

Seriously, go over and read Russell's column. It's a good one.

The CBC should definitely be including right-wing views, and not just on CBC.ca. Our national broadcaster has a mandate to reflect Canada to Canadians. Professional journalists are responsible for making sure that happens. When they screw up, they need to admit it and take steps to keep the problem from happening again.

The problem here wasn't a lack of conservative voices on CBC.ca. It was with the editing of the original column. The column was indeed "viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan."

Viciously personal is not OK -- this is the reason I objected to the statements she made. I do not like it when people take nasty, personal potshots at individuals. In this case, Ms. Mallick went completely beyond anything I'm able to support by attacking the personal appearances of the Palin children. Not cool.

Grossly hyperbolic can sometimes be OK. It depends on the context. I'm grossly hyperbolic when I write as Uriel. Ms. Mallick has made a living on gross hyperbole. It's not as if the CBC didn't know this when they started to publish her columns.

Intensely partisan is totally fine as long as it is balanced with dissenting opinions. It seems to me that CBC is already doing this, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The vicious personal stuff could have been edited out. Calling Bristol "pramface" added nothing to the argument. The "porn actress" comment was completely un-called-for. I actually like to read about candidates' fashion and style choices (Robin Givhan is my favourite fashion writer), but that was not the point of this column. It didn't belong there and should have been edited out. I wish the CBC had seen this.

What a boob

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: We've heard it all before.

You would think that by now, store owners would be smart enough to just shut up about not liking breastfeeding. But apparently not.

The story's familiar: A woman is either asked to stop breastfeeding or is shuffled off into a corner. The next day, she shows up with dozens of her closest co-lactationists. (No, that's not really a word.) News spreads and the store looks stupid. Meanwhile, idiots come out of the woodwork to proclaim that breastfeeding is disgusting, or, alternatively, totally fine as long as women are discreet about it.

I am opposed to discreet breastfeeding, mostly because the only people who talk about it are total jerks.

"As long as it's discreet" is code for "as long as I don't know it's happening". People who say this usually mean one or more of the following things:

• They should never be exposed to a baby who is beginning or ending a meal.
• They should never be able to tell that the baby is eating at all. Ideally, they should not be able to tell that the baby even exists.
• Babies should have blankets fastened securely over their heads while they eat.
  
• Babies should eat in the public bathroom. (This is one of my favourites.)
• Anything other than this is basically the same thing as peeing in public.

The alternative to breastfeeding is a screaming, hungry baby. I know which is more disruptive.

"If you identify yourself, or could in any way be identified..."

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Just don't say anything. That way, WE don't look bad.

Remember the CNN producer who was fired for blogging in his spare time?

Well, CNN has finally come up with a blogging policy to guide its employees' activities online. Apparently, they wanted to make sure it was restrictive enough to allow the guy to be fired. There is nothing more embarrassing than having to backtrack and say that a person was fired under a policy that didn't exist at the time and, even when it was developed, wasn't tough enough to allow firing based on what he actually wrote! What a black mark on the company THAT would be!

Here's the policy.

The gist of it is that CNN would like to control what its employees say on their own time. All of its employees. Even behind-the-scenes people like shooters. Even freelancers, who aren't employees at all but are still covered by this ridiculous policy. Some of the more interesting parts:

We’ve gotten a number of questions from CNN staff wanting clarification of CNN policy on communicating publicly about our work, or on news or public affairs -- on the internet. In Blogs. In Chatrooms. On video sharing sites. On social networking sites.

I sure hope these guys don't write anything that the public will read. This is a disastrous attempt at parallelism. In fact, the entire policy is such a grammatical mess that my shoulder muscles seized up several times while I was trying to read it.

[I]f you’re discussing things that are in the news, keep in mind you could be seen as representing CNN, and therefore you should not comment on the issues CNN covers.

I love this. I assume that CNN sees every blog as representing the official views of the blogger's employer. This is helpful. It means there are no personal blogs, only official company websites.

CNN’ers are encouraged to visit Second Life, just keep in mind it’s a public place and the same rules (listed above) apply as they would to “real” public life.

Also: CNN'ers are encouraged to play Scrabulous, WoW and online chess!

CAN I HAVE MY OWN WEBSITE OR BLOG?

Yes. But you should notify your supervisor about it, to have it cleared as a non-conflict for your work. Your supervisor may choose to then have it cleared at another level or by S&P. And again, you shouldn’t post commentary on anything you might cover in your work or CNN may report on, or write about the CNN workplace or post CNN material without permission by a senior CNN manager.

I really have a problem with managers "approving" personal blogs. Why would any company want to approve someone's blog? I absolutely don't understand this. When some idiot posts racist material on the Internet, the last thing you want is the media reporting that the guy's blog is company-approved. You want to be able to say that his blog is entirely personal and the company had nothing to do with it.

No commentary on anything you might cover in your work. I agree with this one. A health reporter probably shouldn't be blogging about health trends. It blurs the line between your personal blog and the work you do for your employer. A good rule of thumb: If you're writing something that looks too similar to something you might produce for your employer, it's probably best to use it for work instead of your blog.

No commentary on anything CNN may report on. Hmmm. I'm not sure how anyone would predict this. Staff are now supposed to know in advance what the news will be? This is just stupid.

HOW ABOUT MYSPACE, FACEBOOK OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES?

Again, on these sites only write about something CNN would not report on.

"Would not report on" is not the same as "may report on". I'm not sure which was intended here, but really, it doesn't matter. I don't know how you could possibly write only about things CNN would not report on. Is there a list of topics CNN refuses to do stories about? I've watched their coverage; I know they report on just about everything. (Check out this recent story about yo-yos.)

It's good to have policies about self-expression, but this isn't the way to write them. I still think that Name of Employer Withheld has one of the best policies I've seen. To summarise:

Employees may say what they want about matters of public interest. However, they cannot use their jobs to give their personal opinions added weight.

Common sense and normal journalistic ethics are all that CNN needs. They just need to figure out how to get some.

I wrote more about reporters' blogs here.

*You* are on the record. *I* am not.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: The rules of journalism don't apply to journalists!

A reader sent me a link about the New York Times' placement of a story about the money, fame and influence female bloggers have. Apparently the Times believes that this sort of story belongs in a section called "Fashion and Style". You see, anything women do belongs in the Style section. Not in Business or Technology, even if the story is about the business of technology.

I'm not saying that Style is a lesser section than the others, but the placement does seem a bit odd to me.

I'm not the only one. Amber Naslund wrote a letter to the editor complaining about it:

I’m so disappointed that you managed to completely undermine the professional, hardworking group at BlogHer by parking that article on your “Fashion & Style” page. Why not Business? Technology? These women are changing the face of technology and the online world, and you’re parking them off in a trivial corner instead of among the gamechanging minds of Web 2.0 where they belong.

This is exactly why glass ceilings exist. Way to take a legitimate, amazingly powerful event for professionals and treat it as “aw, how cute!”.

Shame on you.

And that probably would have been the end of it.

Until the Times decided it didn't like what Amber had said. An editor contacted her and asked her to change the letter. Apparently, the Times believes it doesn't have an answer for her. They can't respond to questions about placement, because stories are placed wherever they are pitched.

Hmmm.

This is interesting, because it's only half true. I do believe that stories are placed where they're pitched, because this is common in the industry. For example, if I'm freelancing to CBC and pitch a story to Definitely Not The Opera, it won't air on Quirks and Quarks even if it's about science. The shows have separate producers and don't usually give stories away to each other. I assume the Times has a similar setup.

Now, was that hard to explain? Does it look like the sort of thing that doesn't have an answer? I'm trying to imagine what would happen if someone told the Times there wasn't an answer for whatever question their reporter had posed. I'm betting the issue wouldn't just go away.

It gets better.

The editor also asked Amber not to reveal her name, because she's not a higher-up and doesn't speak for the section.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it!

You have probably already grasped the silliness of this, but let me spell it out more clearly: A representative of the New York Times has asked a member of the public to change its criticism of the paper, and then asked for anonymity because she is not an official spokesperson.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I hear a lot of complaints from reporters that people won't go on the record for their stories. They don't WANT to talk to the guy at the top; they want to talk to the employee who really has all of the dirt. And they want to talk to that person in a casual way at the grocery store, so he doesn't realise he's being interviewed. Well, that describes the news industry better than any other.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

News 2.Oh

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: WE DIDN'T SAY IT! SOMEONE ELSE SAID IT!!!

Before I begin, I will put up the standard disclaimer for the benefit of the Forces of Evil: I am not a lawyer or an expert on the legal implications of publishing material without editorial review.

A few days ago, I posted about a story in the Paper of Record that turned into a virtual graffiti board when the editors opened up the comment section and then apparently refused to moderate it.

This particular story hit home for me and several of my readers, but there is a legitimate journalism issue here: the publication of unreviewed reader comments.

As Russell Smith informed us a few months ago, when newspapers publish comments on their sites, it makes them innovative and cool. Just like bloggers, only WAY WAY cooler than loser bloggers who don't have columns in the Arts section of the Paper of Record.

This is a new issue: it wasn't even considered when I worked in the media. However, it is not really all THAT new, in the sense that news organisations have been accepting and publishing feedback for a very long time. Newspapers call this the letters to the editor section. CBC calls it Talkback. Either way, the idea is the same.

For several years, part of my job was to review and prepare Talkback for broadcast. This was usually the easiest thing I did all day. People would leave us messages; I would record them into our computer system, edit out any weird stuff, and write anything the host would need to say about the comments that had come in that day. Just about anyone could do it.

I did not, however, broadcast every message I received. Some people would call every day. Others were boring or off-topic. A few did not have anything to contribute: they simply repeated points other callers had made much more effectively. These messages were quickly deleted.

That was years ago. The Internet has made it possible to leave messages on news stories without a journalist's review. You can write ANYTHING on the MotherCorp's site or the Paper of Record's site.

This is one of the clearest indications that they still don't take the Internet seriously. It would never occur to the Paper of Record to publish any old opinion that came in the mail. I spent a summer working for a show that had a daily hour-long phone-in. All callers were screened. All calls were on a seven-second delay, and the host politely ended calls from people who were really stupid. This was standard then, and I'm sure it's standard now. There is no reason to turn your programming over to any idiot with a phone line.

The Internet is a new medium, but the same rules should apply. Idiots who want to post racist, hateful material should not find a willing partner in our national media.

Ugh.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: I'm an annoying Gen-Whyer, and so are you!

I really shouldn't read Leah McLaren's columns, but for some reason, I always do. Leah, you see, represents women of my generation. I know this because she keeps insisting that she does, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this.

Today, Leah informs us that, like me and the rest of the approximately one million Canadians who happen to be our age, she is a gypsy who takes a casual approach to international travel. We just show up in Zanzibar with our Blackberrys and hang around.

This is really helpful. It's like Leah is peering right into my soul. I'm thrilled that she represents me to the rest of Canada through the Paper of Record, because I've been waiting for someone to express my desire -- no, need -- to drop everything and leave the country on a moment's notice. This is really the way I live. It's too bad that it took until now for someone to be pioneering enough to point it out. Thank you, Leah!

It's really unfortunate that Leah apparently does not know anyone who isn't an annoying childless freelance writer from Toronto. She claims that this lifestyle is very common and depends on "portability of work (i.e. self-employment)". I see. What she really means is "(i.e. unemployed wanna-be writer)": I can tell you from experience that self-employed people can't live this way. Clients don't like it when you run off to Libya. Only tortured, misunderstood, artsy weirdos can do this. The rest of us have to earn a living.

I suspect that Leah's friends don't actually do this, either. They've shown poor judgment by talking to her about their lives, but they've got to make money somehow. Organic food, lofts and Converse All-Stars aren't cheap, and used-book stores don't pay their staff as well as Leah would like you to think.

I had to read her column several times to figure out what is actually happening here. Leah provides four examples of this supposedly common behaviour:

• Herself. She disappears to other countries without telling her family where she's going, because she is so hip and awesome. No indication of how often she actually does this. Also, she has a cell phone. People of the world: The 1980s are long gone. Cell phones are no longer a status symbol. Please stop telling us that you own them: We are not impressed.
  
  
• A friend who books flights at the very last minute because it is cheaper. No indication of how often he actually does this or where he is going. I suspect he is going to Winnipeg.
  
  
• A friend who likes to go to other countries without planning ahead. No indication of how often he actually does this. However, he has an iPhone, so you should be impressed.
  
  
• A friend who went to Kenya without telling Leah. No indication of how often she does this, whether she tells other people, or whether the trip was planned.

I don't really like "trendwatching" articles, but this doesn't even meet the lowest standards for trendwatching. Thanks, Paper of Record.

Boring conversation anyway

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: You didn't give me an interview, so I'm going to say that you suck!

I don't know who originally said that you should never argue with men who buy ink by the barrel, but in general, it's not a bad idea. (Well, except when the men making these bulk purchases are really bad at journalism or grammar.)

The Paper of Record has a bone to pick with Harrison Ford. Apparently Mr. Ford sucks, and everyone knows it. We tolerate him, but don't respect him. And we definitely don't love him. Basically, we put up with his presence on our movie screens because -- well, the Paper of Record never really makes that clear. But it's in the Paper of Record, so it has to be true.

You see, Rick Groen wasn't able to interview Mr. Ford for his column. If the actor had made himself available, I have no doubt that the Paper of Record would have published one of its typical fawning stories, complete with a photo. But he didn't, so the Paper of Record will have its revenge. They CONTROL the masses, doncha know? Simply by saying that nobody likes him, they will make it become true!

It would never have occurred to me that nobody likes Harrison Ford. It's a ridiculous notion. Sure, some people don't like him: nobody is universally loved. But the man is an icon and has been in dozens of movies, including some of the most popular ones ever made. Han Solo has a cult following. Raiders of the Lost Ark is still one of my favourite movies.

But the Paper of Record is desperate for proof that everyone hates him. He sucks because his name reminds the writer of Presidents Harrison and Ford. He sucks because he's in Steven Spielberg movies. He sucks because he doesn't direct himself. He sucks because he likes privacy and didn't want to be president, governor or mayor.

Did I miss something? Is it now a black mark on an actor's career if he does not run for public office?

Yes, those pants make your butt look fat

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Things you should never say.

Consider this your monthly dose of free communications advice. I really mean it. If you say any of these things, I may be forced to take violent action against you.

I refuse to comment. Uh, moron? This is a phrase the media made up to make you look bad. When you won't answer their questions, they say you're refusing to comment. It's a way to make you look shady and untrustworthy. Never ever ever use the word "comment" when talking to a reporter. It just puts the word in her head. If you can't talk about something, say that you can't talk about it and explain why.

Anecdotal. I sort of understand this one. I mean, you're a bit slow to begin with. You can't be blamed for telling people that their stories are anecdotal. They're technically anecdotes, right? If nobody's ever told you that the worst thing that ever happened to you was anecdotal, I suppose you might not realise that this word sends the message that it's just a cute little story that's not worth taking seriously.

Safe. You're stupid. Never tell anyone that something is safe. It might be safer, but it's not safe. The second something bad happens, you'll be screwed.

I'm not going to talk about it. That will make everyone else stop talking about it. I have lost all respect for you. Fortunately, I didn't have much to lose. You don't control what other people say, and you don't control their opinions about what's important. The only thing you can control is whether you tell them your side of the story.

I don't know what happened, but I assume... Uh, hello? Stop talking. If you don't know what happened, just shut up. The last thing you want to do is start guessing about it in public. Your educated guesses are helpful in private while you're trying to figure out what really happened. They are not helpful to anyone else. Tell people you're going to find out what happened, and then go and find out.

You didn't use the same words I did, so you're wrong. No, she's not. You're a control freak who can't stand it when someone else talks about your favourite issue. There are times when you need to use your jargon. Those times should be very rare. If your jargon's really the only way to explain something, tell people why. At all other times, normal people should be able to understand you and talk about the issue using normal English. Don't tell people you're collecting nasopharyngeal swabs when you could just tell them you need to rub the insides of their noses with Q-Tips. And it's a waste of your energy to get upset with them when they don't use your jargon.

Not in my backyard. Okay, I knew you were an idiot, but this takes the cake. People don't say this about THEMSELVES. The phrase means that a selfish person is refusing to go along with something that almost everyone agrees is in the public interest. Usually the selfish person thinks it's in the public interest, too, he just doesn't like the way it would affect HIM. Until recently, I wouldn't have believed that it was even possible for someone to be this dumb. However, you have surprised me. Boy, I love surprises.

"The bride should wear the veil after she has become a wife."

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: MY COLUMN IS THERAPY! YES IT IS! YES IT IS!

I should have known better than to think Sarah Hampson had improved. In the last few weeks, I've read her column in the Paper of Record without wanting to scream. For some reason, I figured that her editor had clamped down on the self-indulgent ex-bashing. Clearly, I was wrong.

As you'll recall, Ms. Hampson is on a crusade to convince the world that her own personal situation is the hottest ticket around. Divorced women, you see, are the only ones who are able to have any personal growth. Whereas married women are stupid, frumpy and unable to cope in the real world, divorced women are smart, sexy and confident. Especially if they've got a couple of kids and a nasty ex-husband. Separation agreements are hot! Got that? Come over here and let me show you my application for joint custody!

Ms. Hampson's column has typically been a mix of anonymous sources, family therapists and thinly veiled snipes at her ex-husband. Because I have familiarised myself with her body of work, I am now able to recognise where she's going with any particular topic. Her column is generally about herself, even when she pretends it's not, and it usually mentions that men are terrible.

And so I was infuriated when I saw that this week's column begins with a mention of Rosemarie Fritzl, the Austrian woman who discovered a few days ago that her daughter has been in the cellar for the last two decades. Ms. Hampson knows how Ms. Fritzl must be feeling. You see, she's been married, too.

Married women, she informs us, just want to think that everything is fine. They only see how horrible their husbands are when they have been liberated through divorce.

Ms. Hampson, you are totally right: You DO have something in common with Ms. Fritzl! Her husband is suspected of forcible confinement, rape, kidnapping and psychological torture, but your ex-husband lied to you! Your ability to sympathise with other people is truly limitless.

Women, you see, are in denial about the cause of our problems. Fortunately, Ms. Hampson can be our role model in our collective quest for self-enlightenment. She has already discovered that men are the cause of all of her problems. And she accomplished this while looking GORGEOUS.

This is profoundly disappointing, because I think a column about life after divorce would be interesting. I'd like to read about someone who is struggling to balance her relief that it's all over with her sadness that things didn't work out, but feels guilty about that struggle. She might write about her shock at discovering that her kids try to play their parents off each other, and admit that she really LIKES shared custody, because she gets a few days to herself every week. Or maybe she thinks the logistics of sharing custody are so difficult that she might as well live in the same house with her ex; besides, they're sort of getting along again.

But of course, this is too much to ask of Ms. Hampson and the Paper of Record.

"Tell Gucci to stop clubbing baby seals"

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Propaganda.

There's been a lot of talk in the northern blogosphere lately about PETA's disingenuous efforts to take down the sealing industry. I've been pretty clear that I think they're in the wrong. But I have to say that they definitely know what they're doing.

PETA's annual campaigns are not about saving baby seals. They haven't been for years. Their annual campaigns are about raising money, and they're pretty successful.

You see, it's illegal to kill whitecoat pups. The video footage PETA provides to news agencies makes it look like sealers are clubbing pups right now, but the footage was shot decades ago. Most seals aren't clubbed, either; they're killed with a single bullet. They are, however, often dragged across the ice with a large hook after they are killed, and that doesn't look very nice on TV.

Seals are not skinned alive. This one doesn't even make sense. A sealer who's just after an animal's skin would not risk damage to the skin by trying to take it off a living animal if a whack on the head would stop the flailing. (See, PETA doesn't have a monopoly on gruesome discussions.)

But this is not and never was about the facts. That baby seal on a pristine ice floe is a pretty amazing image, and blood shows up really well on ice. All of the killing takes place in a few weeks, so the corpses pile up quickly. The sealers never had a chance once PETA figured out they could use whitecoats to raise money.

You see, there are many, many animals that are treated worse than seals. They live terrible lives and die terrible deaths. I'm thinking specifically of chickens, but any animal that lives on a large farm will do. Chickens don't bring in donations. City people eat chickens. They don't want to hear about their sweat-shop eggs. It's much easier to ask Newfoundlanders to give up their livelihood than to stop eating eggs.

Did you know that live male baby chicks are thrown into grinders and turned into food for other animals? Did you know that chickens will literally peck each other to death? Did you know that they live in horrendous conditions and that blood pours all over the slaughterhouse floor? Yeah, that's pretty horrible, and it all really happens. It's too bad they're not pretty on TV, and it's too bad that you could actually do something about it by just refusing to eat chicken or eggs instead of giving money to an animal-rights organization. Obviously, chickens can't be the face of a fundraising campaign.

PETA is not trying to be fair. They never are. They are trying to get you to donate money, so they can hire more staff to convince you to donate even more money. It's all about self-interest, and I don't blame them for wanting more money. I want more money, too. I only blame them for lying to you.

PETA has some good ads. I especially like the ones that are obviously supposed to be funny, like this series. They're well-written and make you think. The sealing ads, on the other hand, are not about making you think. If you actually thought about the sealing hunt, you would realise that PETA's been lying to you for years, and you would stop giving them money. They can't have that.

Name of Paper Withheld is BACK

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Pull quotes.

It's been a while since I mentioned Name of Paper Withheld: they've been satisfyingly mediocre for the past couple of months and haven't deserved my wrath. However, this lovely pull quote on the front page of today's paper is just ridiculous.

Pull quotes are short quotes from the body of a story, presented in larger font as part of the overall page design. They're a great way to pull readers into a story, especially a story that's a bit hard to understand at first. They can also pull readers into the entire newspaper by featuring the best thing that's been said since the last edition hit the streets. They are the print equivalent of the quotes that air just before the TV news begins. They're dynamic and exciting, and can set the tone for the reader. The idea is to showcase your very best material in hopes of pulling more people into the paper. A really good quote on the front page can even convince people to buy the paper. It sums up the best story of the day in a handful of words. It can be a beautiful thing. Think "I am not a crook" or "We will be greeted as liberators".

Now, let's break down the best thing Name of Paper Withheld thinks it has: "I'd far prefer to honour them than these birds."

Hmmm. I'm not feeling it. Anyone else? For starters, there's no context here. I need to figure out what this person is talking about before I can decide if it's a good quote. That's a problem.

Never fear: It turns out that it's a quote from one of our city councillors, who apparently has a "preference for prominent [name of town withheld]er's over raptors for street names". Hold on. My eye twitch is acting up again. For a second there, I thought Name of Paper Withheld had gone back to using apostrophes as decoration. I'll just glance at it really quickly and look away, just to make sure.

Dammit, won't they ever learn how to use punctuation?

And what the HELL kind of English is that, anyway? Who prefers people over raptors for street names? That doesn't even make sense. The only way this could have been worse would have been if Name of Paper Withheld had used "then" instead of "than". (I have to find something positive in this. It's the front page, after all.)

Braving the story on page 10, I discovered that Councillor Brooks cast the only vote against a bylaw that would name streets in a new subdivision after birds. But don't worry! City Hall is still going to name streets after people! They just want to name a few streets after birds for a change.

This is the kind of hard-hitting news that requires a free press. Hold the front page.

I should be taken out back

Reader-submitted complaint: OMG Little Miss Know-it-all missed National Grammar Day! I am shocked and appalled at this lackadaisical approach to the correction of grammar. Get with the program!!

Oh, dear. It's true.

I linked to Stefanie yesterday but didn't do my own post. I agree: obviously, I shirked my duty by ignoring this important day.

I left a comment about grammar on Phil's blog yesterday, but he made fun of me and now my confidence has been destroyed. Yes. How sad. I may never be able to write about grammar again. The world could be deprived of my important contributions to semicolon and homophone usage. It's a true tragedy and it is ALL PHIL'S FAULT. He knocked me off my game and now I'm worried that I may never get the magic back.

The most trusted name

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Shut him up! Dammit, we can't shut him up? Maybe we should hand him a megaphone instead.

CNN is the latest employer to prove itself completely incapable of dealing with bloggers. You see, they discovered that one of their producers was blogging in his spare time. (GASP.) Even worse, he occasionally wrote about the television industry! (DOUBLE GASP.)

They immediately fired him, ensuring that his dangerous opinions would never see the light of day again.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. The only thing this did was draw more attention to the guy's blog. They might as well have put up a billboard telling people to check it out.

Who would have thought that firing him would make the situation worse? This was certainly an unpredictable result. And who would have thought that until he was fired, he didn't mention who he worked for or what went on at work? Until CNN decided to draw attention to him, he was really nothing more than a blogger with a less-than-favourable view of Oprah. Firing him turned him into a star.

Morons.

This situation could have been dealt with quietly and politely. It reminds me of the CBC's heavy-handed plan to scare its staff out of blogging about their kids.

Employers: You will never be able to win by pretending that you can control everything your staff say in their spare time. And frankly, I think it's dangerous for you to even suggest that when your staff blog, they're representing you. If anything, you should be pushing for more general understanding that personal blogs are, uh, personal blogs. (Duh.) You never ever want it to seem like someone else's personal blog represents your own opinions. Firing people for going off-script on their own blogs just feeds into this idea. The more you try to insist that your staff follow the party line, the more you open yourself to criticism about the one or two weirdos you don't know about. Instead, you ought to be making it very very clear that personal blogs DON'T represent the company and that you have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Employees: I'm not saying that you should be able to post anything you want on your personal blog. In fact, there are a few things I won't defend you for:

1. Posting trade secrets or details about clients. This just isn't cool. Whether it's medical information about your patients in ways that identify them or the recipe for your boss's secret blend of herbs and spices, it's not OK. You can still write about what you do, but you can't give away information that's not yours to give.

2. Pretending to speak for your employer. Again, not cool. This turns your happy little personal blog into something that's half work, half personal. It's not fair to your readers or to your boss. It gets into what I was saying to employers a bit earlier: personal blogs should never ever be seen as extensions of the person's work. If anything, you need to make it really clear that nothing you say on your blog is your employer's opinion. This doesn't mean you can never write about work or use the expertise you've gained at work, but it does mean that you should be smart about the way you do it.

3. Saying rude things about people at work on your oh-so-secret blog. For pete's sake, find a more creative way to do this. If you're a writer, you can probably figure out a way. It seems like I'm always reading about people who've been fired for posting really stupid things about their bosses. I can never figure out why they couldn't come up with a way to write around the situation.

None of this is intended to show that you can't write about things you do at work. In fact, some of my favourite blogs are from people who've figured out how to write about their industries:

• Phil and Jackie
• Ricki
• Dr. J. and Dr. H.
• Mike and Jeannette

One day we will all figure this blogging thing out. Until then, I'm sure several other media companies (why is it always the media companies?) will make stars out of their former employees, who will quickly be snapped up by the competition. Great work, guys.

Hiding in plain sight

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: [CENSORED] you, you [CENSORED]ing [CENSORED] [CENSORED]. Signed, Anonymous.

I do not like anonymous Internet jerks.

I don't mind mildly critical anonymice, or jerks who are willing to put their names behind what they say, or even jerks who post under Internet names that link back to their own blogs.

I'm not talking about my own readers. I love comments, and I don't mind when people comment anonymously, even with something that's not so nice. You guys aren't the problem. Keep your comments coming! They make my day.

But I do get annoyed when a critical mass (ha!) forms. This is easier than it should be online. Voices of reason simply don't carry as well as hysterical ones do. And the anonymity makes it worse.

I follow an anonymous blog that's critical of one of my former employers. The Tea Makers has been going since the summer of 2005 and claims to be written by a member of the CBC's Toronto management team. I'm really not sure why I still read the thing, but it's probably out of some sense of solidarity with my former co-workers.

Although it was quite good early on, it has degenerated into a bitch-fest with at least one full-time troll. Goody. It's too bad, because they do have a good point: The MotherCorp could be better than it is, with more creativity, flexibility, and all those "ity" words its management team spouts at every opportunity (there's another one!). The problem is that that good point gets lost in the bile. The CBC's new president commented on the last post, asking if he was wasting his time.

I talked to a reporter about this a few days ago for a story he was writing. Anonymous criticism's too easy to do. It means a lot more when you're willing to put your name behind what you're saying. It's hard to drum up much support for your cause when you hide behind anonymity, especially when the person you're criticising has been honest about his or her own identity and opinions. If you really believe what you're saying, make it count. Use your real name.

I can't believe I'm defending CBC management. This is what the anonymice have brought me to.

You don't know the power of...

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: The dark side.

Let's get one thing out of the way right now: I am not a journalist.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Like most of my friends, I am a former reporter, although I was the first of our group to leave. I still work as a writer and editor, but I am not nearly as impressive or as subversive as I was a few years ago when I worked for the MotherCorp. I have been co-opted by the conformists and everything I do is suspect. I am The Man.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I am on the dark side. This blog could contain subliminal messages urging you to...uh...I have no idea. But it's possible! As a non-journalist, I am definitely pushing some sort of agenda. You can't trust me.

Isn't that annoying? Yeah, I agree. I don't like it, either.

Journalists are trained to think of themselves as the only people who can be trusted to know what's in the public interest. The more annoying ones refuse to accept that they could ever be wrong or that anyone else could ever be more trustworthy than they are. These are the people who use the phrase "the dark side".

Technically, the dark side is PR. Journalists don't like shades of gray, so they don't understand that there's a difference between shilling for a company and providing information to the public. (Ha! See, I can make blanket statements, too! Isn't it annoying?)

Okay, I'm being unnecessarily harsh. What I'm trying to say is that some reporters are jerks with over-inflated egos. However, most of them are decent people who don't like the jerks any more than I do. These guys have made an impressive effort to take back the "dark side" phrase. I wish I could say they've been successful. They really do mean well. They always say it in a friendly way, intending to tease someone who is almost always a former colleague.

Journalists: I'm going to do you a world of good by telling you that it never works. Please stop saying it. I know what you're trying to do, but it rings hollow every time.

I felt that I had to post on another blog today after someone took the author to task for using the phrase. She meant well. She was paying tribute to a co-worker who is leaving journalism, and she tried to tease her gently. A reader got very offended. More offended than I thought was appropriate, given the circumstances.

I didn't take the space there, so I'll do it here on my own blog to explain why people hate this. I personally don't get upset, but I think the people who use the phrase honestly don't understand why it bothers their friends.

No matter how friendly you are or how teasing your tone is, the clear message is that you are better than the other person. You are purer, more trustworthy. Your friend is a sellout who would say anything for a buck.

Now, remember that you're saying this to a person who comes from the same background you do. That's why you're teasing her, right? She wouldn't get the joke if she wasn't a former reporter. She has already been through an agonizing decision to leave your pure industry and go into a sullied, less honourable industry. You think you're being funny, but it's offensive. Your friend is already worried that you think less of her for changing jobs, and now you're twisting the knife.

When you use the phrase, you channel that self-righteous attitude I was describing earlier. You hate those guys just as much as I do, but you become one of them when you tell your friends they're on the dark side. Please stop.

UPDATED: The author of the post I mentioned above has responded. Kate Nova is an awesome writer who lives in Iqaluit. I read her blog every day, and so should you. I didn't link to her yesterday because this post is about the phrase in general, not the way she used it a few days ago, and definitely not about her personally. I have no doubt that she did not know that people are offended. In fact, all of the decent people who say this have no idea why their friends don't like it. I am certainly not saying that I think you guys are snobs. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

The Year In Review -- of MEMEMEMEMEME

Today’s episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: LOOK AT ME! I’M A REPORTER! REALLY, I AM! YES, I AM!

Is the Globe’s Style section getting worse, or am I just crankier than usual?

End-of-year articles are normal. They’re not good, but they’re normal. Newspaper staff want to take time off, but the publisher still needs to deliver a certain number of ads to readers. Something’s got to go in between those ads, and there’s a limit to the number of I’m-so-embarrassed-about-being-vapid-but-damn-it’s-fun-to-be-vapid columns Leah McLaren can crank out in a week. (Tomorrow: Leah tries to be nice to homeless people, but decides to drink Cosmos instead.)

So the editor orders up some year-in-review text to fill the space between the ads. Don’t worry: Sarah Hampson leaps to the occasion.

I’m not sure why I never noticed Ms. Hampson until recently. Like our friend Ms. Eckler, she is on a crusade to convince the world that her own personal situation is the hottest ticket around. Goody. That’s what we really need in the newspaper: another woman who is willing to debase herself for 25 cents a word. And so we’ve been subjected to story after story explaining why divorced women are sexy. It’s too bad, because I think there’s a place for a columnist who wants to write about life after divorce. This, however, is not exactly what I had in mind.

Ms. Hampson brings us the 2007 Review Of – wait for it – Ms. Hampson’s Interviews. This is hard to believe, but apparently, reporters interview people. Yes. I was amazed, too. The opening anecdote is about an actor who, shockingly, thought Ms. Hampson was stupid. Not being intelligent enough to catch on, Ms. Hampson was “as ecstatic as a schoolboy who has just uncovered a stash of Playboy magazines.” Nice.

But wait! There’s more!

Ms. Hampson has also interviewed marijuana enthusiast Marc Emery. (Um, ditto. Who hasn’t, I ask you?) And Howie Mandel! And Leonard Cohen! What a career she must have! She is so glamorous. I bet that if she wasn’t a reporter who is willing to give people free newspaper coverage for their pathetic projects, D-list celebrities like Tia Tequila would STILL want to talk to her. She’s just the kind of person who attracts that sort of attention. Sit back and admire her.

Is 2008 going to be any better?

w00t?

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: I DID IT FIRST! YES, I DID! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME! I THOUGHT OF IT FIRST!

I am not sure if I should take any comfort from the fact that Russell Smith is aware that he makes me sick. His latest column begins with the words "It is unseemly for a reporter to gloat about a scoop, I know, but". Ugh. But nothing, Russell. Shut up.

Of course, he never does. Russell, you see, is ahead of the curve on all things related to journalism. In this case, he's years ahead. He pinpointed a trend in 2004! And the Associated Press is only seeing it NOW! What a bunch of duffers! They probably don't even wear pocket squares.

I am not a huge fan of "trendwatching" articles, but there is something about Russell's style that puts a crick in my neck. People are using l33tspeak now, and it's a huge relief to Russell. What if people hadn't picked up this trendy way of writing on teh internets? How embarrassing would THAT be? Fortunately, HE SAID IT FIRST!!! In 2004! Get that, everyone? Russell is SUPER COOL.

For once, I agree with Russell. This is truly an unseemly display.

Russell, apparently, has heard "clever boys in bars" saying "LOL". (Russell is in his forties, but still spends lots of time paying rapt attention to boys in bars.) First, what kind of moron says that? And who thinks that's clever? And how pathetic would a columnist have to be to think it was worthy of inclusion in the newspaper? Hold on -- I think we have our answer.

But wait! Russell's not through with his discussion of language!

Apparently, the word "nuanced" has a new meaning. It means, oddly enough, that something has a new meaning. Fear not: Russell stampedes to the rescue yet again. What would we do without him?

"Nuanced", dear friends, does not suggest that a word has a new meaning. It refers to a subtle distinction. I can understand why Russell would not be able to comprehend this, as he likes to metaphorically whack people over the head with his own smugness.

I, on the other hand, prefer to use sarcasm, irony and cultural references to insult people who never get the joke. Russell probably thinks I'm a huge fan.