It’s a little embarrassing for a media/journalism junkie to admit, but I just discovered Storify this morning. I’m hoping to use it for future blog posts, but my first story will be an investigation of Storify’s impact on media and journalistic potential.
From what I can tell so far, Storify is an interactive tool for people to easily create stories using tweets, Facebook statuses and links. From their FAQ:
Storify is a way to tell stories using social media such as Tweets, photos and videos. You search multiple social networks from one place, and then drag individual elements into your story. You can re-order the elements and also add text to give context to your readers.
Storify launched its private beta in September 2010, according to Mashable.com. Media outlets and bloggers were first to utilize Storify, developing real-time stories on the 2010 midterm election and other topics. Unlike following Twitter trending topics, Storify allows story writers to pick and choose the most relevant tweets, videos and pictures about a certain thing. The search bar also allows users to filter out RTs and search for pictures.
Storify became available to the public in April and has since been used to document the #londonriots as well as bad dates.
What’s great about Storify is that users can search tweets, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube–everything, really–all from the same window. Unlike posting a regular WordPress or Tumblr post, bloggers don’t have to keep opening up Google to look for a specific reference.
After writing this post, I’m convinced Storify is an excellent new tool for journalists with a focus on multi-media and social networking sources. I have a feeling that articles will gradually become more like this as people move away from face-to-face and even phone content. As people stop using the phone the best way to get direct quotes will be through Twitter and Facebook. But hopefully in-person interviews won’t completely die.
A lot of journalists are stubborn and unwilling to accept change, but I think as more discover how easy Storify makes organizing content, they’ll become converts.
My only concern is that Storify makes it easy to organize existing content on the web, but there’s no option I can see for uploading your own videos unless they’re already available in a tweet or through Flickr. I’ll do a bit more exploring to see if there’s a better method for sharing photos.
Right now, the “mother monster” Lady Gaga has over 12 million eager followers on Twitter. When she achieved this status last week, Lady Gaga asked her “little monsters” to get #12MillionMonsters to trend on Twitter.
Omg! Latey Gaga again. I can't believe I have 12 million followers! Let's trend #12MillionMonsters! Can't wait to perform on TV twice 2nite!— Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) July 28, 2011
And, as followers in a cult are wont to do, her 12 million monsters listened and attempted to trend #12MillionMonsters. While they were ultimately unsuccessful in pleasing their “queen,” some of the more dramatic proved quite entertaining, if not a little creepy.
The day @ladygaga follows me will be when I'm on the grave having #12millionmonsters is making hard for Gaga to see us — Hookah Na†e (@judashookah70) July 31, 2011
Some of her #12MillionMonsters used the opportunity to get Lady Gaga to follow them, tweeting the same thing upwards of 10 times [see below].
This Twitter user REALLY wants Lady Gaga to follow them...for some reason or another.
Now, I have absolutely nothing against Lady Gaga. I actually think she’s an interesting person. I’m willing to admit that it’s even possible she’s being sincere when she tweets at her “family” of monsters. However, you can’t deny that inspiring an entire Twitter family of 12 million devoted fans doesn’t have its benefits for someone in the music industry. 12 million fans–seemingly willing to die for you–means (hopefully) 12 million songs sold. It means, even if you don’t deserve the title, you have 12 million monsters to vote for your video for best female video every day for a month. It’s a perfectly legitimate strategy.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way, as one follower pointed out (forgive the poor grammar, for all we know this person is 10 years old).
If there are #12MillionMonsters and everyone buys one wouldn't the selling of Born This Way be more than just 4 millions? #justsaying— Teal cup wretch (@Identitysense) August 01, 2011
But what happens when you have an entire group of people–I’m assuming most of the followers are real–completely devoted to one person? Lady Gaga asked her monsters to tweet #12MillionMonsters a week ago and some of them are still tweeting it. Lady Gaga tells her followers that “Edge of Glory” was inspired/based/dedicated to her grandfather and followers automatically believe her, despite this line:
I need a man who thinks it’s right when it’s so wrong/ Tonight yeah baby
Maybe my grandpa and I had a completely different relationship, but how can a song inspired by someone’s grandfather be so obviously about dancing and–maybe after the dancing–sex?
But back to my point: Lady Gaga has 12 million followers that believe anything and everything she tweets about. It’s true, Lady Gaga uses that fame for good in her LBGT advocacy, but at what point does a song like “Born This Way” become a political stunt to gain more devoted and lonely kids to follow her? Unless Lady Gaga emails me (feel free if you happen to read this blog post) and offers me an interview, I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied that she’s not using her followers in a similarly controlling (but non-violent) fashion as Charlie Manson.
Though she might have the most dedicated fans, Lady Gaga is not alone in exploiting the devotion of lonely teenagers. Some of the more popular songs about “being yourself,” accepting “god’s gifts” and overcoming obstacles are, starting with, of course:
Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way”: “I’m beautiful in my way/ ’Cause God makes no mistakes/ I’m on the right track, baby/ I was born this way”
Katy Perry’s “Firework”: “You don’t have to feel like a waste of space/ You’re original, cannot be replaced”
Selena Gomez’s “Who Says”: “Who says you’re not perfect/ Who says you’re not worth it”
Taylor Swift’s “Mean”: “Someday I’ll be big enough so you can’t hit me/ And all you’re ever going to be is mean/ Why you gotta be so mean?”
Glee’s “Don’t Stop Believin’”: “Some will win, some will lose/ Some were born to sing the blues…/Don’t stop believin’/ Hold on to the feelin’” [Yes, I know Journey first sang this. But for the crowd I'm referring to, only the Glee version matters.]
I understand that 12 million monsters aren’t going to be very happy with my assessment of Lady Gaga’s Twitter cult, but it’s important for them to understand that their queen’s industry is one powered by money. She may believe in many of the causes she promotes–such as the repeal of DADT or LBGT rights–but forgetting the politics behind Lady Gaga’s tweets is foolish. Take her upcoming 1000th tweet. Lady Gaga explains that it’s going to be the music video of “Yoü + I”:
The Music Video for "Yoü and I" will be my 1000th Tweet— Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) August 02, 2011
The tweet above is obviously a PR stunt. Monsters will eagerly await her 1000th tweet without realizing every view on YouTube or wherever will make her another load of cash.
When I woke up this morning, I checked my Twitter news feed like I always do. And, like I always am, I was greeted by a lovely news update from one of New York’s top two sensationalized newspapers:
HORROR: Missing 8-year-old Brooklyn boy, Leiby Kletzky, found dead; body dismembered in dumpster http://nydn.us/nkvCz9— NYDN News (@NYDNnews) July 13, 2011
Ah, nothing like waking up and learning how truly horrifying the world can be. In the days before Twitter, I didn’t hear about stuff like this until at least 9 a.m. But then, as technology changes journalism, sensationalism changes as well.
Even before technology (or Jack the Ripper, for that matter), sensationalism played an important role in journalism and the spread of news. People would shoot the breeze about this guy getting eaten by a bear or that woman being involved in affair. It’s human nature to be curious about things that might affect our own survival–such as death and sex. Humans literally eat up sexualized, disgusting, horrifying and gruesome stories–especially when they’re about children–and so, it makes sense that the New York Daily News and the New York Post would be so popular. If you don’t buy the survival theory, then think about the alternative: humans are sick, twisted individuals that like it when young kids are brutally chopped to pieces. Yeah, I don’t like the sound of that either.
Now, thousands of years after the first “reporter” told his friend about a murder in the next village over, spreading news about sex scandals, rape and torture is a lot easier. All I have to do is look at the New York Post Twitter feed. In fact, they tweeted this about 30 minutes ago:
The somewhat subdued front page of a newspaper after "Jack the Ripper" began his killing spree in London.
If I switched on the TV, I would probably see the dead boy’s innocent face on-screen as a pretty blonde discusses where different pieces of his body were found by police this morning. I can even head over to Google, type in “dismembered boy” and see all the news articles associated with the story. Awesome!
While I do believe strongly that sensationalism is and always will be an important part of news (no matter how it’s received), it’s a little silly to describe and show real images of horrifying and inappropriate things to children, considering the general media outrage after the Supreme Court rejected a ban on violent video games for children. What’s the point of banning anything these days when kids can sign on Twitter and see former Representative Weiner’s groin or updated-to-the-minute tweets about dead kids their own age?
There isn’t. As technology makes news more accessible, we have to come to grips with sensationalism getting even worse. When Jack the Ripper killed his first prostitute 100 or so years ago, photography was just heating up. You can bet if newspapers had the option back then, they would have shown a picture of police standing over the poor girl’s bloody body.
So after obsessing over getting it for a week, I finally got an invite and was able to accept that invite to Google+. Unfortunately, Google has been really secretive about how to get on the site during the field test. Normally, in these types of tests, everyone initially invited gets a certain number of people they can invite and then those people can also invite a certain number of people–and so on. But for Google+, in order to participate in the field test, you must be invited and accept the invite during a completely random and totally unpredictable invite window. As a result, if someone invites you to Google+ during this invite window but you don’t accept until later, you miss out.
In laymen’s terms, getting on the site during the field test takes a certain level of vigilance. For me, this meant harassing my sister’s friends who got invites. I did that until I realized getting an invite from a random person on Twitter would be better.
Now, two days after creating my profile, I’ve decided I think I like Google+ more than I liked Facebook when I started that social networking site. Don’t get me wrong–it will take Google+ several months to surpass Facebook in usability. Some of the features still have kinks, but I still believe that Google+ is superior than Facebook was in it’s beginning stages. I also understand many of the Twitter features users have come to know and love–@ mentions, #hashtags–were developed by users after the site got popular. Similarly, I think, once more people get involved, the features on Google+ will become more useful and will develop without the help of Google. Like any social network, Google+’s value will ultimately be determined by what people make of it.
That being said, here’s what I think (if you care at all) about Google+’s features:
Circles
For me, this is what makes Google+. Yes, users on Facebook and Twitter can sort their friends and followers by lists, but, on Google+, you can add people’s’ emails to circles even if they aren’t part of the social networking site. When I first got both Facebook and Twitter, my parents both wanted to snoop on my pictures, statuses and tweets. Because of the nature of Facebook, my mom always complained about not being able to look at the pictures I had of me and my friends. My dad, being a little confused about how it worked, created his own Twitter to see my tweets (though you can see anyone’s unprotected tweets as long as you know their username).
Google+ resolves both of these issues with circles. I created a circle for my family and can send specific status updates and share photos and such with my mom and dad to their emails. They don’t have to join anything.
This also makes it easier to hide certain things from parents, if you’re so inclined. However, Facebook is probably still going to be the best place to do that–at least for now. While Google+ is working out problems, I don’t recommend sending anything too sensitive to any circles because it might go to all your circles.
Before I really understood how this feature worked, I sent a status update to everyone in my Google+ circles. Basically, this means I sent an email to everyone. I sent a frantic second status apologizing, but I’m still a little embarrassed by it.
So no one else makes the same mistake, Google+ users should take note of the screenshot to the right. This album is of a family trip me and my parents took last summer. As you can see, users can choose to “share” the album with certain circles. For the people in your circles that don’t have Google+, they will get an email with a link to the pictures. You can also choose to not email people without Google+.
Hangouts
Hangouts is like Skype with a lot of people–or at least it seems that way. Personally, I haven’t tried this feature out. I don’t know enough people on Google+ to actually use it (though I think my boyfriend and I will try it this week, so I’ll write about my personal experience then).
To use the feature, you have to first install Google Voice and Video (which is kinda annoying, but it only takes a second). Then you can let people in certain circles know you’re open to video chatting. I’m excited to try this feature with my friends from back home in Evanston, IL, as well as those I’ve met in NYC. Whenever we actually get around to Skyping, it takes some time to plan and that can be pretty annoying, especially when the only way to communicate is via Facebook (if they’re in Europe or whatever).
Sparks
So far I haven’t delved too deep into Sparks–Google+’s response to the interest side of Twitter. However, I don’t think I like it too much. On Twitter users can #hashtag certain interests or topics in their tweets. This is pretty useful for both finding followers and discussions as well as having other users follow you.
On the other hand, Sparks is sort of silly at this point. I added some Sparks, but it looks like the feed of sites and information is nothing but a Google search of that word. For instance, I sparked “news” and the only thing that seems to be coming up is news about News of the World.
That being said, I think Sparks will get better with time. On the sparks home page, there’s several featured Sparks feeds and these seem to be more comprehensive than searching and creating your own Spark streams, which seem like Google searches now.
___
As you can see, Google+ isn’t perfect. But, like they warned in the “field test” box, it’s only a week old. Social networks, because they’re meant to be userfriendly, only get better as more and more people join.
If you’d like an invite to Google+, comment below and I’ll add you during the next invite window I see (but, like I said, you’re responsible for accepting that invite during the same window).
Despite having one of those so-called "coveted" invites, I am unable to use Google's attempt at social networking. Bastards.
When I first read about Google+, the company’s long-awaited attempt at social networking, I wasn’t exactly interested. The basic concept behind Google+ is summarized in several thousand articles online, which I won’t link to from here. But here are the main things that Google+ has to offer, directly quoted from Google themselves [cause there's already a million places where you can find re-wording]:
Circles
You share different things with different people. But sharing the right stuff with the right people shouldn’t be a hassle. Circles makes it easy to put your friends from Saturday night in one circle, your parents in another, and your boss in a circle by himself, just like real life.
Sparks
Remember when your Grandpa used to cut articles out of the paper and send them to you? That was nice. That’s kind of what Sparks does: looks for videos and articles it thinks you’ll like, so when you’re free, there’s always something to watch, read, and share. Grandpa would approve.
Hangout
Bumping into friends while you’re out and about is one of the best parts of going out and about. With Hangouts, the unplanned meet-up comes to the web for the first time. Let buddies know you’re hanging out and see who drops by for a face-to-face-to-face chat. Until we perfect teleportation, it’s the next best thing.
So, in summary, Google took the best aspects of Facebook (what people are doing, sharing=Circles), Twitter (looking at stuff you find interesting and following it=Sparks) and Skype (video chatting with people=Hangout) and combined them into one happy little social media platform.
It sounded sort of redundant when I first heard about it. I decided I would sign up, but only because, as a journalism student, you have to be interested and open to new things in social media. So I didn’t care too much about getting an invite.
Until my sister told me she knew someone who could invite me.
Now, a week later, I’m obsessively checking Google+ because they have this annoying little thing saying:
It’s embarrassing, but I didn’t care about signing up until I found out that I couldn’t sign up. It’s sort of like that crap they blog about on Betches Love This Site: This betch really loves things that she can’t have. Right now, I can’t access Google+, and it’s driving me completely insane.
After obsessively checking Twitter #googleplus today, there was finally hope, it seemed:
False. If you type in “plus.google.com” the first time on a web browser, you get a–hallelujah–sign in page. Then, after signing in with your account, you get redirected.
While some people are tweeting that their invites are getting accepted, I still have yet to get mine, and I’m annoyed. But, at the same time, I’m extremely intrigued.
Like this silly photo shows, sometimes old people have trouble using computers--but they sure do like it!
Before his somewhat pathetic announcement this week that he did, in fact, send explicit photos of himselfto various women over the Internet, I believed Representative Anthony Weiner was a victim of hacking or a Twitter bug. I figured no one–short of a 14-year-old girl with insecurity problems–would be so dumb as to conduct their sexual life via Twitter.
The photo shared on yfrog, a Twitter photo service, that began the Weinergate scandal.
Unfortunately for me, Weiner, his wife and everyone who will see the alleged photo of the congressman’s bulge (that was leaked today), he really was that stupid. When I told my dad that I thought Weiner was innocent, he explained that, after watching his attempts to face the media storm on various TV talk shows, he decided Weiner was lying. He never specifically saidthat the crotch-shot was of him or not.
Fast forward a week. Weiner announces (crying) to an unsurprised group of reporters that he’s been sending explicit photos of himself to women online.
“To be clear, the picture was of me and I sent it…[the conversations he has had with these women online were] a very dumb thing to do. And it was a destructive thing to do. But it wasn’t any part of a plan to hurt my life. Or to be deceitful to [the public]. It wasn’t part of a plan…if you are looking for some sort of deep explanation for it I don’t have one for you.”
After denying that the photo shared on Twitter was of him, Rep. Weiner came clean.
So I was wrong about Rep. Weiner. I’m going to pretend that my incorrect assessment of the situation came from my awe-inspiring tendency to see the good in people. But in reality, I should have known that anyone above the age of 30 has trouble conducting personal affairs online because they don’t understand that gosh-darned Internet.
To be fair, there are certain exceptions to this rule. But, for the most part, adults I’ve spoken to about Twitter call the site “tweeter”. And you can forget about cell phones. I figure that Weiner was using his cell to take a picture of his junk (cause how else are you supposed to do that? Using a Cannon is way to classy for Internet sex shenanigans) and couldn’t distinguish between the “direct message” option on Twitter with the “reply at” option. Hint for all those old timers reading this: direct messages are private, replaying “at” someone is a public message all followers can see.
Maybe old politicians will learn their lesson. Maybe they’ll have phone sex or something slightly more private than Twitter-sexting. And maybe we’ll all be able to answer the following question, posed by South Park last year after the Tiger Woods scandal:
“Why would a man who is famous and makes tons of money use that to try and have sex with a lots of different women?” [to be fair, Weiner says he hasn't met any of the women he's contacted, but it still applies]
Note: Because this is a widely written-about current news event, I chose not to cite sources within this post. While I do link to certain articles, I knew about the events discussed above without using specific media sources.
Twitter doesn't have a telephone number, so a computer handles all their customer service.
I have a bone to pick with Twitter. For the past four days, I have unsuccessfully attempted to get in touch with someone–anyone, really–from their “support” team. Why, you might ask, would a journalism student, well-versed in the art of search engine manipulation/optimization, have such a hard time reaching a huge corporation’s help services? Because this corporation doesn’t have a phone number.
While I understand that Twitter is a company founded on the principle that the Internet is far superior to anything else, sometimes conversing with a computer screen doesn’t cut it. Especially when you have a complicated problem.
For my new job, a newspaper called The Chief-Leader, they wanted me to re-vamp and use their Twitter account, @TheChiefLeader, to gain more web visitors. This is completely understandable, as it is the Internet/cyber age and Twitter has become an important part of the news industry, however awkward it might be.
Unfortunately, the account was created over a year ago and hasn’t been used for over a year. So nobody in the office knew the password or the email that was linked to the account. I sent in a request form last Thursday and told my boss if they didn’t get back to us by today I would call them. Because I assumed that an international corporation has to have a telephone number. My bad.
One Twitter's "support" pages (obtained with screenshot).
After discovering that Twitter wouldn’t be any help because they only let you submit forms online (and even then you can tell they don’t like it), we had to try and track down the person who created the account. When that didn’t work, I sent in another request to Twitter and tweeted a direct message to @support explaining the issue.
I know that Twitter must get hundereds if not thousands of support requests a day, but my boss had a point when he expressed his concern over giving up and changing the username to @ChiefLeader or @TheChief_Leader: it’s a copyrighted name and we should be able to use it…it’s our name.
Through this whole process I tried to use those handy websites where they give you corporate numbers, but, alas, Twitter was completely unlisted. It makes me wonder if the employees only contact each other with email, otherwise I’m sure the main number would have been leaked by now.
In a lot of these websites, like contacthelp.com, I saw I wasn’t the only one frustrated with Twitter’s lack of a phone number. One person commented:
I am a small business owner and the people at twitter are incredibly arrogant. The fact that they feel they do not need to have a phone number to reach customer service people is the apex of arrogance. Their online support borders on insanity and just plan stupid.
Hear hear.
I can only hope that Twitter will read this and get back to me. Otherwise, I may be staring at my email, hoping for a response, the rest of my life.
UPDATE:
I really cannot believe how incredibly lazy the Twitter support team (or computer, if a human isn’t even responsible for the @support account) is. I sent them the following message:
I am an intern for @TheChiefLeader and we are unable to access the Twitter account b/c we don’t have the password or email. How to log in?
To which they responded:
Hi. For information on changing or recovering your password, take a look here: http://t.co/HedaSO5
Basically they didn’t read the message. So I said:
Ok. You really didnt read my message. We don’t have the password or email.
With finals over and nothing to do but read my constantly updating Twitter, I was watching the trends in New York City. Among the usual crap about sports (I still don’t understand who Jason Giambi is) and random creepiness (#shemighthaveadick), I noticed that “Zombie Apocalypse” was also trending. Naturally, I clicked on the link, thinking it had something to do with Saturday’s earthquake/rapture that will kill everyone. I also had a feeling it might be one of those best quote from zombie movies or something trends. But after scrolling through the top tweets, I found one by my good friends at NPR:
Basically, the people at the Centers for Disease Control (also known as the CDC) decided that everyone is completely dumb and needs a fake reason (a zombie apocalypse) to prepare for normal, likely to occur, disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.). The CDC published a blog post,”Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse,” that seems like a joke on the surface, but really there are some pretty good tips for regular disasters. After giving a brief history of zombies (which, really, was unnecessary. People have been preparing for that since “Night of the Living Dead“), the CDC Public Health Matters Blog writer Ali S. Khan explains,
The rise of zombies in pop culture has given credence to the idea that a zombie apocalypse could happen. In such a scenario zombies would take over entire countries, roaming city streets eating anything living that got in their way. The proliferation of this idea has led many people to wonder “How do I prepare for a zombie apocalypse?”
Well, we’re here to answer that question for you, and hopefully share a few tips about preparing for realemergencies too!
I gotta say, some of the tips were spot on.
I don't think an emergency kit will help this girl...(via CDC)
Like the emergency kit, which Khan explains should have (this will be a direct quote)
Water (1 gallon per person per day)
Food (stock up on non-perishable items that you eat regularly)
Medications (this includes prescription and non-prescription meds)
Sanitation and Hygiene (household bleach, soap, towels, etc.)
Clothing and Bedding (a change of clothes for each family member and blankets)
Important documents (copies of your driver’s license, passport, and birth certificate to name a few)
First Aid supplies (although you’re a goner if a zombie bites you, you can use these supplies to treat basic cuts and lacerations that you might get during a tornado or hurricane)
Being the clever government health dude he is, Khan notes there should be an emergency plan, etc, and gives legitimate details about how to concoct one (I won’t bore you with that, it’s all here), but he also links to a legitimate page from the CDC website about emergency planning. While this is clearly manipulation to get people to actually think about emergency planning, I have to say I am mighty impressed.
Think about the last time you “thought” about what to do if, say, there was a flu outbreak or an earthquake. You can’t. Now, because the CDC brought popular culture and zombies into a discussion of safety, all you can think about is how to get a couple of gallons of water in your closet in case “Shawn of the Dead” happens. Proving my point further, the CDC website crashed because so many people were looking at it, according to ThirdAge.com:
“If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you’ll be prepared for all hazards,” CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters Thursday.
However, as Khan was trying to be informative, he left out several important items
The CDC used zombies and social media to (gasp!) teach you something about emergency preparedness. Jerks. (via CDC)
necessary in any zombie emergency kit (Note: I do not recommend actually gathering these items and am trying to be funny. Please don’t sue me.):
Shotgun and any other gun you can get your hands on (don’t forget the “double tap” from “Zombieland”…MAKE SURE THOSE SUCKERS ARE DEAD!)
Make-up (to pretend you’re a zombie too)
Condoms (I mean…if the movies are correct, there’s always gonna be an opportunity for sex during a zombie disease outbreak)
Dead bodies (duh, to feed to the zombies)
Drugs and alcohol (self-explanatory)
At the end of the article, Khan is pretty funny (kinda) and explains:
If zombies did start roaming the streets, CDC would conduct an investigation much like any other disease outbreak.
Okay, so it really wasn’t that funny, but you know all about safety during a legitimate disease outbreak now, don’t you?
I have 3 finals tomorrow, so, naturally, I was on Twitter being completely unproductive. I created my first Tweet Cloud and it’s actually pretty interesting. My top words since I started seriously tweeting last December are mostly related to journalism and news (as well as me re-tweeting news so things like “says”).
My top tweets since I started getting serious with Twitter: people, Twitter and love (awww)
During my internship today, I was monitoring my Twitter when I noticed that @APStylebook tweeted without replying to a follower’s question about a specific rule (something that doesn’t usually happen). The tweet outlined three style changes:
Three style changes: smartphone, cellphone and Kolkata. They are live on Stylebook Online and will be in the 2011 book in May.
In journalism class tonight, my professor mentioned these changes after he noted we might be discussing AP style later in class. One student wanted the professor to clarify why Associated Press style is so important: Basically, my fellow student was wondering why people have decided to follow AP style. The professor explained that AP style isn’t law but rather guidelines that some journalists choose to follow. The student continued, wondering if we had to follow AP style and was answered with a resounding “yes.”
Not much a fan of guidelines that I have to follow (at least in Journalistic Inquiry class) myself, I wondered why NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute chose to teach its students a particular style when one of the world’s most renowned publications (The New York Times, duh) has its own way of doing things. I guess it has something to do with continuity: NYU assumes that many of its journalism students will work on a publication that follows AP style because so many of them do. But why? As a wire service, AP forwards many of its stories to other publications around the world, from the Times to the Evanston RoundTablewhere I interned last summer back home. Throwing together a front page last-minute for a publication like Washington Post, editors will print AP stories verbatim and it helps when cellphone is written the same for both the paper’s original content and the AP wire service material.
However, my professor went on to explain that never in a journalist’s career will they have to know if cell phone or cellphone is correct: they can consult a style book. He compared it to knowing the definition of all words when, in reality, you can look up any word in Webster’s.
This all makes perfectly good sense to me, but I wonder then why I’m (presumably) going to be tested on AP style basics on my second midterm later this month. Also: why the hell did we have spelling tests in first grade when spellcheck existed then?
Note: looking at WordPress’ suggested related articles, I suppose I missed another of @APStylebook’s tweets. They announced email doesn’t need a hyphen anymore. Interesting…email has become its own word instead of an abbreviation for “electronic mail.” I think this means I can use “LOL” “BTdubs” and other abbreviations as words too, now. After all, “good-bye” was once “God be with you.”
It’s a little embarrassing for a media/journalism junkie to admit, but I just discovered Storify this morning. I’m hoping to use it for future blog posts, but my first story will be an investigation of Storify’s impact on media and journalistic potential.
having 
