the peak of journalistic endeavor (1 Viewer)

[MDR]

Same here!

I didn't think that Slane review was so bad though

Speaking of which, it's been a while since a Stoat 'review of review.'

 

[ann post]

Same here!

I didn't think that Slane review was so bad though

to be honest, i didn't read it, just cos i'm not into oasis.

Yeah, the man/woman on the street knows better than them crazy professional journalists.
He/she is also a much better Editor than them professional 'Editors' that the papers employ.

ah now dude. thats too blankety a statement to hold any weight. it assumes that everyone employed on earth is brilliant at thier job.

 

[corksongs]

that was a great review

it could only have been bettered if the last line was "and then I woke up and it was all a dream"

 

[Lepra]

it's amazing a foundation english pre-leaving essay got published in of itself

FAIR PLAY
FAIR PLAY FAIR PLAY
PAIR FLAYFLAY PAY
FFAUPAHHHHUUH

 

[Ciarán R]

I can take some spelling and punctuation mistakes etc, as that can happen but when the highlighted quote is:

"Ain’t it wierd the way all the locals stand outside their gaffs staring ya down like your a criminal"

and contains a spelling mistake as well as a grammatical error, some blame needs to be laid at the editor here.

I gave up on the article halfway through; it wasn't awful, it just didn't hit my funnybone like it was possibly intended to do.

 

[sweetoblivion]

ah now dude. thats too blankety a statement to hold any weight. it assumes that everyone employed on earth is brilliant at thier job.

If you write for an online music publication (ie Drop D calls itself a 'music magazine'), as opposed to just your own personal blog, say, there should be certain standards that you should stick to.
There are some good writers on Drop D and some absolute piss takers, and it's a shame the piss takers - who seem to assume they're some sort of troupe of 'gonzo' journalists - are giving Drop D a bad name, which unfortunately has ramifications for the good writers.
The thing about the internet is that anyone can write anything and it'll be read - the same standards don't apply to blogs, online zines, etc that do to print journalism.
In one way that's fantastic as it gives people the freedom to write about whatever they want to and gives them a platform for it to be read.
But on the other hand it means that people can write terrible, misinformed, badly written reviews/articles that contain bad grammar and spelling, poor comprehension of the written word and half-baked ideas, and pass it off as 'music journalism'.

 

[snoopywaves]

Is it the guy who runs Drop-D who writes these or something? You'd think someone would have a word with him or at least correct his spelling.

 

[ann post]

If you write for an online music publication (ie Drop D calls itself a 'music magazine'), as opposed to just your own personal blog, say, there should be certain standards that you should stick to.
There are some good writers on Drop D and some absolute piss takers, and it's a shame the piss takers - who seem to assume they're some sort of troupe of 'gonzo' journalists - are giving Drop D a bad name, which unfortunately has ramifications for the good writers.
The thing about the internet is that anyone can write anything and it'll be read - the same standards don't apply to blogs, online zines, etc that do to print journalism.
In one way that's fantastic as it gives people the freedom to write about whatever they want to and gives them a platform for it to be read.
But on the other hand it means that people can write terrible, misinformed, badly written reviews/articles that contain bad grammar and spelling, poor comprehension of the written word and half-baked ideas, and pass it off as 'music journalism'.

the main standard i would see that appplies to print journalism is that it is funded by advertising, which undeniably effects the content.

i did read an article in a 'recognised' online blog recently that described some band as 'irelands answer to MBV'. i happen to know they have an editorial team of about 5 people. you'd think one in five might at least have known it, but nope.

 

[Lepra]

drop-ds AIDs benefits were always a superb night out

 

[Froog]

lads i actually think the whole thing is a tongue in cheek pisstake, and is pretty funny.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

the main standard i would see that appplies to print journalism is that it is funded by advertising, which undeniably effects the content.

i did read an article in a 'recognised' online blog recently that described some band as 'irelands answer to MBV'. i happen to know they have an editorial team of about 5 people. you'd think one in five might at least have known it, but nope.

'Affects'.

I think the main difference with print journalism is that the writers can, by and large, string a presentable sentence together. And if they don't it's usually caught, right?

 

[Unknown Convict]

'Affects'.

effect: to bring into existence

 

[Moods For Mallards]

effect: to bring into existence

It brings the content into existence?

 

[sweetoblivion]

the main standard i would see that appplies to print journalism is that it is funded by advertising, which undeniably effects the content.

(We're talking about two different things here, advertising is worthy of another thread in itself)
No, I meant the main standard is that most journalists are actually trained to a certain degree (whether through long-term on the job training/experience - particularly if they are from the 'older' generation of journalists - or through a qualification plus experience) and that they adhere to certain writing standards etc.
I don't mean it in a snobby way but if you train as a journalist you learn, whether in the classroom or on the job, about how to put an article together, how to construct an argument, how to write an intro, how to draw the reader in, etc.
You should also have a good grasp of the English language - grammar, spelling, syntax - without having to rely on your sub editor to fix all your mistakes.

There are writing techniques that news journalists in particular use. And you're constantly learning when you write every day, it's not like you wake up one day and know everything. (And you don't have to study to learn about writing - there are lots of great books out there on how to write properly, just pick one up and give it a read and see how it affects your writing style.)

Of course, when it comes to the internet this becomes a whole different ball game. And in one way that's great - there are lots of bloggers/online writers out there who are not 'trained' but are really interesting and insightful writers and who are ten times better than some journalists/writers.
I read things frequently by people who would not claim to be 'writers' or journalists but who have talent that I wish I had. Or I read things by people such as Amanda Palmer for example - even though I couldn't call myself a 'proper fan' I find her writing inspiring and fascinating on many different levels, even though she rarely uses capitals ( ).

Writing isn't just about technicality, it's also about connecting with the reader. That's the key, and it's why blogs are so popular - it's the personal element that draws people in.
But you need a balance of ability and ideas. No matter who you are or what qualifications you have, you can't just sit down and type any old shite with a half-arsed idea behind it and expect that it's OK to do that. It's not. It's insulting to yourself and to the reader.

And if you say that you're running a 'music magazine' then you should not print that sort of tripe if you want to be taken seriously.

*jumps off soapbox*

 

[Froog]

(We're talking about two different things here, advertising is worthy of another thread in itself)
No, I meant the main standard is that most journalists are actually trained to a certain degree (whether through long-term on the job training/experience - particularly if they are from the 'older' generation of journalists - or through a qualification plus experience) and that they adhere to certain writing standards etc.
I don't mean it in a snobby way but if you train as a journalist you learn, whether in the classroom or on the job, about how to put an article together, how to construct an argument, how to write an intro, how to draw the reader in, etc.
You should also have a good grasp of the English language - grammar, spelling, syntax - without having to rely on your sub editor to fix all your mistakes.

There are writing techniques that news journalists in particular use. And you're constantly learning when you write every day, it's not like you wake up one day and know everything. (And you don't have to study to learn about writing - there are lots of great books out there on how to write properly, just pick one up and give it a read and see how it affects your writing style.)

Of course, when it comes to the internet this becomes a whole different ball game. And in one way that's great - there are lots of bloggers/online writers out there who are not 'trained' but are really interesting and insightful writers and who are ten times better than some journalists/writers.
I read things frequently by people who would not claim to be 'writers' or journalists but who have talent that I wish I had. Or I read things by people such as Amanda Palmer for example - even though I couldn't call myself a 'proper fan' I find her writing inspiring and fascinating on many different levels, even though she rarely uses capitals ( ).

Writing isn't just about technicality, it's also about connecting with the reader. That's the key, and it's why blogs are so popular - it's the personal element that draws people in.
But you need a balance of ability and ideas. No matter who you are or what qualifications you have, you can't just sit down and type any old shite with a half-arsed idea behind it and expect that it's OK to do that. It's not. It's insulting to yourself and to the reader.

And if you say that you're running a 'music magazine' then you should not print that sort of tripe if you want to be taken seriously.

*jumps off soapbox*

jane?

 

[sweetoblivion]

jane?

!ninjaaaa

 

[sealed human]

There are some good writers on Drop D and some absolute piss takers, and it's a shame the piss takers - who seem to assume they're some sort of troupe of 'gonzo' journalists - are giving Drop D a bad name, which unfortunately has ramifications for the good writers.

I think thats probably the case here, except there was no social or (counter)cultural argument or musing offered, to put context into their hilarious trip on 'eccies', and he didnt even mention the Mint 500!

Raoul Duke he ain't...

 

[ann post]

Writing isn't just about technicality, it's also about connecting with the reader. That's the key, and it's why blogs are so popular - it's the personal element that draws people in.
But you need a balance of ability and ideas. No matter who you are or what qualifications you have, you can't just sit down and type any old shite with a half-arsed idea behind it and expect that it's OK to do that. It's not. It's insulting to yourself and to the reader.

well yes, but my original point was something like that you cant expect every journalist or editor to be good, even if they have studied and gotten experience and print cant be trusted because of the advertising factor. you soiund like you agree at some level but i'm not sure.

it could be effects or affects.

 

[Moods For Mallards]

it could be effects or affects.

No it couldn't. At that point in that sentence, 'effects' was the incorrect word.

Have I missed much since June?

I'd say one thing is missed here, and that is this: where music is concerned, no sentient being should think that a journalist's opinion is necessarily more valid than their own, regardless of the quality of the writing.

The reason I posted on this thread was:
I was looking through the rep I've given. I have a cold and I'm running out of things to do.

 

[ann post]

god i fucking hate pedantic people. i'm slightly dyslexic. fuck off. pricks. i've said before, using spelling to detract from a point is about the most brainless waste of time ever. you idiot. you pedantic idiot.