I admit I'm a Virgo, a star sign associated with a pedantic attention to detail, so you won't be surprised when I admit to a ridiculous obsession with one of the oft neglected details of written communication - and that's punctuation.
As the frequent creator and/or editor of pieces of professional writing, indeed, I've been known to angst for hours over an incorrectly placed comma or, horror of horrors, an apostrophe.
Punctuation, it seems, wasn't established as a proper system until the 1400s and has its roots back in the 3rd century BC when some bloke from Byzantium came up with a system of dots and dashes, basically to help people reading verses know when to breathe.
It's kind of ingenious when you think about what just a bunch of tiny marks can achieve.
But I've come to find that the way we use puncutation in itself contains a secret discourse that I have attempted to decode in recent weeks. What I mean is that the kinds of punctuation marks you either favour or forget in themselves may say something about your intentions as a communicator.
Today I'll begin this subject by considering first the full stop, and second, the exclamation mark.
1. THE FULL STOP
First. The Full Stop. (Not to be confused with the Half Stop which is, I understand, a position in a Baseball line-up). Now I have no idea what bloody genius discovered that by simply stalling the nib of his pen to create something that looked like the carcass of a dead tea-fly, a rabble of words spilling forward in a kind on goggle of excitement might be contained and quickly settled. All I know is that it seems to work brilliantly.
But let's consider the unlikely scenario in which. The. Full stop is. Overused. It's easy to see. That the flow of language. All. But. Stalls. And you come across as. A bit of an experimental, literary. Wanker with absolutely no conscience when it comes to your readers' general impatience. With. Time wasting. They just. Want you to. Get on with. It.
Conversely, the under-use of fullstops too may have dire consequences as pieces of writing that contain absolutely no clues as to when would be a good time to stop reading can leave the reader in a kind of limbo and wondering when in God's name this paragraph is going to end or this sentence is it now or now or now without a full stop or two there can be no cue to the reader as to a good time to take a toilet break or have a nice cup of tea or perhaps a quick shag so the appropriate use of full stops certainly has its practicalities. And, by the time you choose to put your reader out of his misery, as biology would have it, he will most likely be on the floor with blue-tinged lips and gasping like a half-dead halibut.
2. THE EXCLAMATION MARK
The Exclamation Mark is one of a handful of punctuation marks that I believe should be approached with extreme caution.
Known variously as a 'shriek', or a 'bang' this little mark has its origins in the Latin word for admiration - io - in the sense that it referred to a 'sense of wonderment'. That resulting mark was known as the 'sign or note of admiration' until the 17th century and made its first appearance in the Luther Bible in 1797. (Not much admiration, but one assumes plenty of shrieking and banging happening in religious writing. I'm sure Jesus would agree).
Of all the punctuation marks at your disposal, the exclamation mark it seems is one of the most overused in common writing and inevitably sends a shudder up my spine!
There is a sense of melodrama to this mark that can imbue even the most mundane sentence with a hyperbole you may not always intend! It is not, as some foolishly assume, a mark that amplifies importance! Instead, it you may unintentionally subvert your meaning! You may find otherwise harmless phrases convey to the reader an unintentional urgency or significance!
It all gets horribly worse when the writer, in a florid state of emotion opts for not one but a collection of exclamation marks!! Remember, an exclamation mark is a bang!!!! It's a shout!!! Imagine one shout or bang becoming several!!!!!!! You'd think you were being attacked by either gun-wielding brigands or Neanderthal villagers bearing burning torches!!!!!!!! Your reader may be forgiven for questioning your mental state!!! Or if you've gone completely insane!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best way to illustrate it is with an otherwise inoffensive statement that you may find in an office memo or, perhaps a police statement (depending on your character).
Exhibit 1: No Exclamation Mark
"Look at what's happening."
Without an exclamation mark, this phrase sits their somewhat sedately as you position yourself as a focused, reasonable observer.
Exhibit 2: One Exclamation Mark
"Look at what's happening!"
The senses are stirred! One begins to wonder, "Where? What should I be looking at!"
Exhibit 3: Exclamation Mark Overload
"Look at what's happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Aside the statement looking like it's been hijacked by a revolution of organised sperm, it's easy to see how the writer or speaker has been transformed into a hyperventillating maniac!!!!! There is no calm observation here, but panic!!!!!!! There's an urge to adopt the crash position, take cover under your desk, suck your thumb and scream for mummy!!!!!!!!
Now breathe, breathe, breathe. You'll be fine I promise once you realise that in the world of exclamation marks, less really is more.
As F. Scott Fitzgerald once advised:
Cut out all those exclamation marks. An exclamation mark is like laughing at your own jokes.
He meant, it's like an orgy of self-admiration that may not always work in your favour.
To be continued....
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Communication More or Less
One of the great questions of any communication activity, whether it involves bodily contact or not, is that of frequency, or more simply, how often.
"Never often enough", my husband might complain, but of course, we're suggesting quite different things.
When I talk about "communication activity" I am indeed referring to any action that requires a reaction - that is that process of 'Send & Receive' (did you notice my the new banner for my blog?) the very foundation of all communication.
The problem these days is that access to quick, easy and often cheap forms of media, and in particular online or E-Communication, has meant that there is by and large way to much sending than is appropriate.
To put things in perspective - and in a bow to my continually unsatisfied husband! - the way I see it the process of sending a communication in whatever form, whether it be physical or virtual, spoken or written, is very much like the actions of a lover.
Like any lover sending signals a desire to establish a communion, a relationship, an understanding, possibly a marriage, a long term commitment that will mean you and your receiver are wed together in a holy bond based on a history of sharing.
But let's face it. These days there is little that is virtuous or restrained about senders, those plighting their troth, those desperate to hitch their respective cabooses to the receiver they so desire.
Indeed there is something akin to communication sluttery, senders so keen to attract your attention that they prostitute themselves to their chosen media.
As a result, these senders exist in a world of excited activity where there is no such thing as too much. And so, they engage in acts of communication so intensely, so frequently that the object of their affections can only tire.
No one likes a stalker,that person who's been given no formal commitment from his receivers of his messages of love yet continues to pester them with promises! pledges! prizes!
No one likes to have their mailboxes, real or virtual, or their facebook or MSN pages, bulging with rubbish.
Just because I've given you my number or made the foolish mistake in befriending you on Facebook or Twitter or MSN, I really don't need to hear from you even five times a day. In my view, once or twice is adequate.
Of course, in the way of all these diatribes, there is always an exception. And here it is.
By and large, all will be forgiven, your sluttery, your prostitution, your pathetic need for the love of that great ocean of possible receivers if and only if you genuinely have something interesting, informative, entertaining or enlightening to impart.
Generally, however, the frequency of communication can tell your receivers much about the degree of thought you may have put into your communication.
Whether you're posting something on Facebook or texting a friend or emailing your marketing material or even telephoning someone you like, never forget that less is always more.
That is, unless you're my husband :)
"Never often enough", my husband might complain, but of course, we're suggesting quite different things.
When I talk about "communication activity" I am indeed referring to any action that requires a reaction - that is that process of 'Send & Receive' (did you notice my the new banner for my blog?) the very foundation of all communication.
The problem these days is that access to quick, easy and often cheap forms of media, and in particular online or E-Communication, has meant that there is by and large way to much sending than is appropriate.
To put things in perspective - and in a bow to my continually unsatisfied husband! - the way I see it the process of sending a communication in whatever form, whether it be physical or virtual, spoken or written, is very much like the actions of a lover.
Like any lover sending signals a desire to establish a communion, a relationship, an understanding, possibly a marriage, a long term commitment that will mean you and your receiver are wed together in a holy bond based on a history of sharing.
But let's face it. These days there is little that is virtuous or restrained about senders, those plighting their troth, those desperate to hitch their respective cabooses to the receiver they so desire.
Indeed there is something akin to communication sluttery, senders so keen to attract your attention that they prostitute themselves to their chosen media.
As a result, these senders exist in a world of excited activity where there is no such thing as too much. And so, they engage in acts of communication so intensely, so frequently that the object of their affections can only tire.
No one likes a stalker,that person who's been given no formal commitment from his receivers of his messages of love yet continues to pester them with promises! pledges! prizes!
No one likes to have their mailboxes, real or virtual, or their facebook or MSN pages, bulging with rubbish.
Just because I've given you my number or made the foolish mistake in befriending you on Facebook or Twitter or MSN, I really don't need to hear from you even five times a day. In my view, once or twice is adequate.
Of course, in the way of all these diatribes, there is always an exception. And here it is.
By and large, all will be forgiven, your sluttery, your prostitution, your pathetic need for the love of that great ocean of possible receivers if and only if you genuinely have something interesting, informative, entertaining or enlightening to impart.
Generally, however, the frequency of communication can tell your receivers much about the degree of thought you may have put into your communication.
Whether you're posting something on Facebook or texting a friend or emailing your marketing material or even telephoning someone you like, never forget that less is always more.
That is, unless you're my husband :)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sharemanship: The Rules
Lately I've been taking stock of the whole notion of "Sharing". Social networking relies on it, reality television would not exist without it, and YouTube wouldn't be nearly half as entertaining.
But while new forms of media have enabled us to share just about anything at a whim, it raises questions as to the whole dynamic of the concept of 'sharing'.
Learning to share is one of the steps in the development of children, a basis to the formation of relationships and both their social and cognitive evolution. As children, we all had to learn how to share our toys without gouging out the eyes of anyone who dared touch our most prized Barney or Barbie.
The emergence of civilisation itself has relied on our acceptance that we must share in order to survive in both a physical and metaphysical sense. From basic resources such as food and fire, land and shelter to things more complex - goals, ideas, principles, passions - human beings have had to learn to share in order to create and maintain mutually beneficial relationships.
In the process, sharing enables us to seek out which birds are of the same feather until we form tribes, clans, social groups, organisations, and so find our sense of place in the world.
But these days, the concept of sharing has become that much more complicated as new forms of media have challenged us to question how, what and why we share.
Social media, in particular, has made the demand for sharing both immediate and ad hoc without always allowing us the time or opportunity to filter our thought processes. After all, the keyboard is just at our fingertips!
The result is that many people are pushed to make poor decisions as to just what they ought to share - by whatever means - Facebook, Twitter, MSN or daily texting.
Should it be that idea or this opinion or that personal fact?
Many of us struggle to know what we should be sharing and what kind of 'due diligence' should be completed before pressing the Share, Send or Submit buttons we have such easy access to.
To help you, here are some points I would ask you to consider.
Nothing is worth sharing unless it seeks to entertain, inform, enlighten or challenge.
There is simply no value in sharing poison or vitriol. There is no value in venting your spleen and sharing your bad day unless you seek genuiune advice as to how to deal with a vexatious situation.
Tone is everything. Always re-read your post to see if it may be construed in a negative light. Do you want to be seen as some hyper-ventillating fruitcake? Or perhaps you come across as a preening narcissist? Or perhaps you may be perceied as an ill-informed ning nong? Whatever the reality, perception is everything.
Be aware of how many "Friends" or "Followers" you may have "befriended" and their connection to you. This can be helpful in determining just what level of intimacy you wish to share.
Finally, always keep in mind that social media sites remain in the public domain. This will enable you to apply the appropriate checks and balances to ensure you are promoting the right image for you.
In my next blog, I'll talk more specifically about why such check-ups can be important to both your personal and public life.
Until then, happy sharing!
But while new forms of media have enabled us to share just about anything at a whim, it raises questions as to the whole dynamic of the concept of 'sharing'.
Learning to share is one of the steps in the development of children, a basis to the formation of relationships and both their social and cognitive evolution. As children, we all had to learn how to share our toys without gouging out the eyes of anyone who dared touch our most prized Barney or Barbie.
The emergence of civilisation itself has relied on our acceptance that we must share in order to survive in both a physical and metaphysical sense. From basic resources such as food and fire, land and shelter to things more complex - goals, ideas, principles, passions - human beings have had to learn to share in order to create and maintain mutually beneficial relationships.
In the process, sharing enables us to seek out which birds are of the same feather until we form tribes, clans, social groups, organisations, and so find our sense of place in the world.
But these days, the concept of sharing has become that much more complicated as new forms of media have challenged us to question how, what and why we share.
Social media, in particular, has made the demand for sharing both immediate and ad hoc without always allowing us the time or opportunity to filter our thought processes. After all, the keyboard is just at our fingertips!
The result is that many people are pushed to make poor decisions as to just what they ought to share - by whatever means - Facebook, Twitter, MSN or daily texting.
Should it be that idea or this opinion or that personal fact?
Many of us struggle to know what we should be sharing and what kind of 'due diligence' should be completed before pressing the Share, Send or Submit buttons we have such easy access to.
To help you, here are some points I would ask you to consider.
Nothing is worth sharing unless it seeks to entertain, inform, enlighten or challenge.
There is simply no value in sharing poison or vitriol. There is no value in venting your spleen and sharing your bad day unless you seek genuiune advice as to how to deal with a vexatious situation.
Tone is everything. Always re-read your post to see if it may be construed in a negative light. Do you want to be seen as some hyper-ventillating fruitcake? Or perhaps you come across as a preening narcissist? Or perhaps you may be perceied as an ill-informed ning nong? Whatever the reality, perception is everything.
Be aware of how many "Friends" or "Followers" you may have "befriended" and their connection to you. This can be helpful in determining just what level of intimacy you wish to share.
Finally, always keep in mind that social media sites remain in the public domain. This will enable you to apply the appropriate checks and balances to ensure you are promoting the right image for you.
In my next blog, I'll talk more specifically about why such check-ups can be important to both your personal and public life.
Until then, happy sharing!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A Friend or Four Hundred
Those of you who have stuck by me and continue to read my itinerant bloggings in this space will remember that recently, I pondered the Brave New World of virtual friendships.
This topic has stuck heavily on my mind and has moved me to contemplate the nature of modern friendships. Has the immediacy, flexibility and accessibility of technology-based communication corrupted our understanding of that most noble of relationships, "the true friend"?
The word "friend" it seems has been commandeered by sites like Facebook and MSN, to such an extent that many people seem to have forgotten the true meaning of the word.
First up let me make if plain that I am probably a little unusual in that I place a greater than usual emphasis on the word. Having been brought up in a boarding school environment, my earlier years were shaped to a major degree by people outside my immediate family. These variously included a nun with a gold tooth, school mates, teachers and if you count it, one crippled dog called 'Bingo'.
Later, when my family moved to Australia, the absence of immediate relatives meant our home was always full of "other people" - my very sociable parents vast collection of neighbours, work mates, fellow Sri Lankans and the occasional international visitor.
These were the people I relied on for my sense of connection to the rest of humanity and so, as a result, the notion of a "friend" was almost narcotic. They were people, in short, who mattered deeply to us.
I have therefore evolved into the kind of human being who places great store on those gestures that reflect genuine caring for another: remembering a birthday; offers of help in times of personal crisis; time spent (often endless time) offering advice, however flawed, to problems that sometimes seem insurmountable. I'm a frequent entertainer and, over the years, have held countless dinner parties and parties, many of them the sole highlight in the social calendars of various individuals. I place a huge emphasis on gifts and will take a great deal of time thinking about each person's likes and dislikes and hunting often for weeks for the "right" present.
But these gestures often surprise my many Australian-born friends. One even suggested, albeit obliquely that I am "over the top."
I would disagree. I would say that I am not "over the top" but that I do not take the concept of 'friendship' for granted. I view it as a flower that must be tendered lest it wither and die.
I argue that "friendship" is the foundation of every single relationship, whether with lover, sister or friend, with mother or child, with teacher, or mentor or any human being with who you interact in any meaningful way.
And friendship requires work and commitment.
Friendship should be a dialogue, not a soliloquy. It should be about presence not absence. It should be about remembering, not forgetting. It should be about the things that bring us together, not keep us apart. It should be about doing a little more - being 'over the top' - than doing a little less.
In my next blog, I will discuss how this notion of friendship should be applied to the online world. In the meantime, I ask you to think a little about what being a "friend" means to you.
And when you next "accept" a friend invitation on Facebook, perhaps pause a little and remind yourself of what this relationship should mean to you.
This topic has stuck heavily on my mind and has moved me to contemplate the nature of modern friendships. Has the immediacy, flexibility and accessibility of technology-based communication corrupted our understanding of that most noble of relationships, "the true friend"?
The word "friend" it seems has been commandeered by sites like Facebook and MSN, to such an extent that many people seem to have forgotten the true meaning of the word.
First up let me make if plain that I am probably a little unusual in that I place a greater than usual emphasis on the word. Having been brought up in a boarding school environment, my earlier years were shaped to a major degree by people outside my immediate family. These variously included a nun with a gold tooth, school mates, teachers and if you count it, one crippled dog called 'Bingo'.
Later, when my family moved to Australia, the absence of immediate relatives meant our home was always full of "other people" - my very sociable parents vast collection of neighbours, work mates, fellow Sri Lankans and the occasional international visitor.
These were the people I relied on for my sense of connection to the rest of humanity and so, as a result, the notion of a "friend" was almost narcotic. They were people, in short, who mattered deeply to us.
I have therefore evolved into the kind of human being who places great store on those gestures that reflect genuine caring for another: remembering a birthday; offers of help in times of personal crisis; time spent (often endless time) offering advice, however flawed, to problems that sometimes seem insurmountable. I'm a frequent entertainer and, over the years, have held countless dinner parties and parties, many of them the sole highlight in the social calendars of various individuals. I place a huge emphasis on gifts and will take a great deal of time thinking about each person's likes and dislikes and hunting often for weeks for the "right" present.
But these gestures often surprise my many Australian-born friends. One even suggested, albeit obliquely that I am "over the top."
I would disagree. I would say that I am not "over the top" but that I do not take the concept of 'friendship' for granted. I view it as a flower that must be tendered lest it wither and die.
I argue that "friendship" is the foundation of every single relationship, whether with lover, sister or friend, with mother or child, with teacher, or mentor or any human being with who you interact in any meaningful way.
And friendship requires work and commitment.
Friendship should be a dialogue, not a soliloquy. It should be about presence not absence. It should be about remembering, not forgetting. It should be about the things that bring us together, not keep us apart. It should be about doing a little more - being 'over the top' - than doing a little less.
In my next blog, I will discuss how this notion of friendship should be applied to the online world. In the meantime, I ask you to think a little about what being a "friend" means to you.
And when you next "accept" a friend invitation on Facebook, perhaps pause a little and remind yourself of what this relationship should mean to you.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Little More Conversation
My sisters and I often moan about it - the slow death of conversation.
I don't know if it's television, mobile phones, industrial deafness, congenital dullness or people with a genuine disinterest in others but it seems the average person today has no idea as to how to start a conversation or keep one going.
The other day I sat on one side of a long-table at a local function and was amazed at how the lady sitting two feet from me was looking at me yet could not rouse herself sufficiently to even say hello.
As usual, I took the bull by the horns. I said: "Hi, my name's Bronwyn. How do you know Linda?" (the function organiser). There was the slight uplift of eyebrows as if to say: "Me? You want to talk to me?"
Actually, I didn't because the truth is, after around 40 years of trying to show an interest in people, there are occasionally moments when the very idea of it is, frankly, wearying.
What is it with people these days? Even when we find the time to sit down with people we know, there is often complete disinterest in conversation.
The average person is content to sit their like the cold leftovers of a long-forgotten dinner and, I don't know, I suppose just wallow in a moment of exuding their own dullness.
Personally, I can't see the point. Human relationships are about interaction, and interactions begin with a genuine interest in others.
You'd be surprised at what you can learn if you just take the time to engage with another human being.
A simple question about why they might be sitting where they are, might lead to an association and possibly a common interest or experience that may find your time at that table you're sitting is passed much more pleasantly.
Conversation is, in fact, at the heart of every relationship - whether with your lover, a work colleague or a friend. As Wikipaedia observes, Conversation is indispensable for the successful accomplishment of almost all activities between people, especially the coordination of work, the formation of friendships and for learning.
It is therefore, I believe, an essential skill that we should all aim to become more proficient at.
Feel uncomfortable conversing? Then you need to learn how and the best way to do so is to start practicing!
Most conversations commence with a question or an observation. Try to avoid complaining, whinging or gossiping about other people. Focus on ideas, things that are happening around you, perhaps a news item you may have seen on TV or read about. Introduce a subject and see where it takes you. If it leads to a dead-end, try another tack.
With each new conversation, your skills will improve and before you know it, you'll find people gravitate toward you because you'll be genuinely interesting. Good luck!
I don't know if it's television, mobile phones, industrial deafness, congenital dullness or people with a genuine disinterest in others but it seems the average person today has no idea as to how to start a conversation or keep one going.
The other day I sat on one side of a long-table at a local function and was amazed at how the lady sitting two feet from me was looking at me yet could not rouse herself sufficiently to even say hello.
As usual, I took the bull by the horns. I said: "Hi, my name's Bronwyn. How do you know Linda?" (the function organiser). There was the slight uplift of eyebrows as if to say: "Me? You want to talk to me?"
Actually, I didn't because the truth is, after around 40 years of trying to show an interest in people, there are occasionally moments when the very idea of it is, frankly, wearying.
What is it with people these days? Even when we find the time to sit down with people we know, there is often complete disinterest in conversation.
The average person is content to sit their like the cold leftovers of a long-forgotten dinner and, I don't know, I suppose just wallow in a moment of exuding their own dullness.
Personally, I can't see the point. Human relationships are about interaction, and interactions begin with a genuine interest in others.
You'd be surprised at what you can learn if you just take the time to engage with another human being.
A simple question about why they might be sitting where they are, might lead to an association and possibly a common interest or experience that may find your time at that table you're sitting is passed much more pleasantly.
Conversation is, in fact, at the heart of every relationship - whether with your lover, a work colleague or a friend. As Wikipaedia observes, Conversation is indispensable for the successful accomplishment of almost all activities between people, especially the coordination of work, the formation of friendships and for learning.
It is therefore, I believe, an essential skill that we should all aim to become more proficient at.
Feel uncomfortable conversing? Then you need to learn how and the best way to do so is to start practicing!
Most conversations commence with a question or an observation. Try to avoid complaining, whinging or gossiping about other people. Focus on ideas, things that are happening around you, perhaps a news item you may have seen on TV or read about. Introduce a subject and see where it takes you. If it leads to a dead-end, try another tack.
With each new conversation, your skills will improve and before you know it, you'll find people gravitate toward you because you'll be genuinely interesting. Good luck!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Who wants to know?
Proclamations of love. Daily intimacies. Daily diaries overflowing with mundanities. Often hastily scribed, sometimes bubbling with excitement, and perhaps an overuse of punctuation.
Don't you love social networking sites? All of a sudden, once-lonely Leona has a million 'friends' or 'followers' and boy, is she embracing the share-fest.
The voyeur in me loves it - and sure, it's heartening to know that I am not alone in my imperfect, angst-ridden life.
But the communicator in me can't help but cringe.
The fact is that all communication should be about 'targeting' or niching messages specific to an audience, something that is lost to the average Facebook user. Not every message is interesting, relevant or suitable for every person and is dependent on a range of demographics - age, education, culture and so on.
Despite privacy options that enable us to distill our friends into lists, unfortunately most people don't realise that the more "friends" you accumulate, the more care needs to be taken in exactly what is said or shared.
Okay, I know it takes the fun out of it. It's the spontaneous, visceral 'posts' I enjoy - the friend in the thrall of jubilation, the one needing advice and counsel, the one having a bad day, the one (usually me) not afraid to post a heartfelt expletive.
But the cruel reality is that the more obscure the degrees of connection to your world of Facebook friends, the more caution we all need to take in who, what, where and when we choose to post our feeling, thought or insight of the moment.
Spontaneous communications are wonderful between intimate friends, but as the degrees of separation get into their double digits, it is wisest to practice some self-censorship.
Start with your motivations.
Remember that your commentary on sites like Facebook and Twitter are a window to your world. Do you want to impress, inspire, titillate, shock, amuse, inform, entertain, excite?
From the great 'why', the 'what' will follow and please, don't forget the most important consideration in my view, 'who'. Who wants to know?
Don't you love social networking sites? All of a sudden, once-lonely Leona has a million 'friends' or 'followers' and boy, is she embracing the share-fest.
The voyeur in me loves it - and sure, it's heartening to know that I am not alone in my imperfect, angst-ridden life.
But the communicator in me can't help but cringe.
The fact is that all communication should be about 'targeting' or niching messages specific to an audience, something that is lost to the average Facebook user. Not every message is interesting, relevant or suitable for every person and is dependent on a range of demographics - age, education, culture and so on.
Despite privacy options that enable us to distill our friends into lists, unfortunately most people don't realise that the more "friends" you accumulate, the more care needs to be taken in exactly what is said or shared.
Okay, I know it takes the fun out of it. It's the spontaneous, visceral 'posts' I enjoy - the friend in the thrall of jubilation, the one needing advice and counsel, the one having a bad day, the one (usually me) not afraid to post a heartfelt expletive.
But the cruel reality is that the more obscure the degrees of connection to your world of Facebook friends, the more caution we all need to take in who, what, where and when we choose to post our feeling, thought or insight of the moment.
Spontaneous communications are wonderful between intimate friends, but as the degrees of separation get into their double digits, it is wisest to practice some self-censorship.
Start with your motivations.
Remember that your commentary on sites like Facebook and Twitter are a window to your world. Do you want to impress, inspire, titillate, shock, amuse, inform, entertain, excite?
From the great 'why', the 'what' will follow and please, don't forget the most important consideration in my view, 'who'. Who wants to know?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Blog or Be Damned
You've been invited to subscribe to a blog, but hang on, what should you expect? What are the rules of engagement?
After all, this isn't like a mainstream newspaper you may be familiar with. Blogs, generally, aren't guided by any formal 'editorial policies'. They aren't niched to specific target demographics and they're not sustained by advertising dollars. So how do you know if a blog is for you?
Should you subscribe to my blog, you'll come to know that I'm one of those people who has a theory for just about everything. It's a congenital weakness that I have absolutely no explanation for. Although if pushed, I'm sure I could provide you with a theory as to why I have a theory for everything.
Here is my theory about what makes a good blog. Like all good theories, it is open to testing.
HOPE'S THEORY ON BLOGS
Blogs are generally written by people who:
1. Believe they are interesting (and yes, sadly, some are kidding themselves).
2. Think they have something to say (not always meaningful)
3. Have time they wish to invest in the process (often, arguably, a little too much time).
Blogging can be inspiring and interesting and provide a worthy platform for you to showcase your writing talents, your ideas and takes on life. They can also reflect a certain narcissistic attachment to the daily minutiae of life, and a desire to analyse one's thoughts on a specific issue or the day's events.
It is arguable as to whether such attachment and the predisposition to analysis is healthy. As a writer, for example, I do read the occasional blogs posted by my colleagues in their fervid attempts to promote themselves. I am always struck by the high levels of self-involvement in these blog and I imagine the writers, sucking on their lukewarm cups of coffee while seated at their desks in their pyjamas and looking like Phyllis Diller on a bad hair day, posting their latest with one mantra driving them on. That mantra is: "It's all about me."
Call me cruel, folks, but frankly YOU may not be all that interesting. Much as I'd love to share your breathless reports about how fabulous YOU is progressing on your fabulous journey through your fabulous life (or alternatively, how depressed Dora is coping with the latest miserable episode from a tawdry, little life), this is not what blogging should be about.
I for one have always imagined that any communication, blogging included, however small, should be motivated by some simple guiding principles that I consciously attempt to apply in all my daily interactions (not always successfully). I urge all bloggers to consider these:
Firstly, any communication, should be targeted at a specific audience with the process of targeting providing good boundaries for determining, for example, appropriateness of topic and style of language used. In communication strategising, audience targeting is the first step in good planning so why not apply this as a blogger. Ask yourself, who are my subscribers? What are they interested in? Apply the WIFM principle as all good marketers do. Every reader is looking for a level of engagement that delivers a personal benefit. Whether it is to make them laugh or cry, whether it is to enlighten and enthuse them, whether it's to establish a connection with them through your own life, it doesn't matter. Just spare some time to determining what your audience wants and expects from you.
Secondly, every communication, however mundane, is necessarily driven by a specific objective. "Pass thee salt", "lend me some money", "come over for coffee". Whenever we open our mouths or consign anything to paper, there is usually something we want to achieve or to get.
There are three main outcomes we can want from any communication. To:
Over arching it all should be the desire to impress because every communication ultimately impacts on your public and personal image. Let me say here that gushing self love is not certain to make you impress. Let me be blunt: nobody likes a wanker so err on the side of caution. Be proud of your accomplishments but sandwich the exuberant ego masturbation between a top and tail that puts your accomplishments in the perspective of your reader and what he or she may gain from your journey.
Finally, in determining if or when you should disseminate your communication, whether it is to have 'that' chat, or send out 'that' email, or even write this blog, the single, most important criteria you can apply is the ibe I learned in the very first week of my journalism degree: Is it newsworthy?
Knowing what's newsworthy is like breathing for any journalists worth their salt. A good story will get a journo's spidey senses tingling almost quicker than a rumour of a 75% off sale at David Jones will send my ESP (Extra Spending Potential) into a spin. Journalists know what makes a story newsworthy and it is based, on a variety of criteria. For example.
1. Is it timely?
2. Is it relevant to your audience?
3. Does it have a high immediate value?
(I found a more detailed description of newsworthiness at www.cybercollege.com).
Be aware though, that newsworthiness along can provide no clear guarantee as to the attractiveness of your story or material. True journalists, I'm sure, are with me in rueing the impacts of checkbook journalism and celebrity-fever on the calibre of news with a tendency today for front-pagers to be dominated by a fawning kind of populism. Opinion masquerading as news has tarnished the quality of many news reports in my view.
Still, if you haven't managed to secure a picture of Rihanna's cellulite to help sell your site, be assured that if your material is timely, relevant and valuable, you will have an audience somewhere.
Happy blogging!
After all, this isn't like a mainstream newspaper you may be familiar with. Blogs, generally, aren't guided by any formal 'editorial policies'. They aren't niched to specific target demographics and they're not sustained by advertising dollars. So how do you know if a blog is for you?
Should you subscribe to my blog, you'll come to know that I'm one of those people who has a theory for just about everything. It's a congenital weakness that I have absolutely no explanation for. Although if pushed, I'm sure I could provide you with a theory as to why I have a theory for everything.
Here is my theory about what makes a good blog. Like all good theories, it is open to testing.
HOPE'S THEORY ON BLOGS
Blogs are generally written by people who:
1. Believe they are interesting (and yes, sadly, some are kidding themselves).
2. Think they have something to say (not always meaningful)
3. Have time they wish to invest in the process (often, arguably, a little too much time).
Blogging can be inspiring and interesting and provide a worthy platform for you to showcase your writing talents, your ideas and takes on life. They can also reflect a certain narcissistic attachment to the daily minutiae of life, and a desire to analyse one's thoughts on a specific issue or the day's events.
It is arguable as to whether such attachment and the predisposition to analysis is healthy. As a writer, for example, I do read the occasional blogs posted by my colleagues in their fervid attempts to promote themselves. I am always struck by the high levels of self-involvement in these blog and I imagine the writers, sucking on their lukewarm cups of coffee while seated at their desks in their pyjamas and looking like Phyllis Diller on a bad hair day, posting their latest with one mantra driving them on. That mantra is: "It's all about me."
Call me cruel, folks, but frankly YOU may not be all that interesting. Much as I'd love to share your breathless reports about how fabulous YOU is progressing on your fabulous journey through your fabulous life (or alternatively, how depressed Dora is coping with the latest miserable episode from a tawdry, little life), this is not what blogging should be about.
I for one have always imagined that any communication, blogging included, however small, should be motivated by some simple guiding principles that I consciously attempt to apply in all my daily interactions (not always successfully). I urge all bloggers to consider these:
Firstly, any communication, should be targeted at a specific audience with the process of targeting providing good boundaries for determining, for example, appropriateness of topic and style of language used. In communication strategising, audience targeting is the first step in good planning so why not apply this as a blogger. Ask yourself, who are my subscribers? What are they interested in? Apply the WIFM principle as all good marketers do. Every reader is looking for a level of engagement that delivers a personal benefit. Whether it is to make them laugh or cry, whether it is to enlighten and enthuse them, whether it's to establish a connection with them through your own life, it doesn't matter. Just spare some time to determining what your audience wants and expects from you.
Secondly, every communication, however mundane, is necessarily driven by a specific objective. "Pass thee salt", "lend me some money", "come over for coffee". Whenever we open our mouths or consign anything to paper, there is usually something we want to achieve or to get.
There are three main outcomes we can want from any communication. To:
- Inform
- Persuade
- Entertain.
Over arching it all should be the desire to impress because every communication ultimately impacts on your public and personal image. Let me say here that gushing self love is not certain to make you impress. Let me be blunt: nobody likes a wanker so err on the side of caution. Be proud of your accomplishments but sandwich the exuberant ego masturbation between a top and tail that puts your accomplishments in the perspective of your reader and what he or she may gain from your journey.
Finally, in determining if or when you should disseminate your communication, whether it is to have 'that' chat, or send out 'that' email, or even write this blog, the single, most important criteria you can apply is the ibe I learned in the very first week of my journalism degree: Is it newsworthy?
Knowing what's newsworthy is like breathing for any journalists worth their salt. A good story will get a journo's spidey senses tingling almost quicker than a rumour of a 75% off sale at David Jones will send my ESP (Extra Spending Potential) into a spin. Journalists know what makes a story newsworthy and it is based, on a variety of criteria. For example.
1. Is it timely?
2. Is it relevant to your audience?
3. Does it have a high immediate value?
(I found a more detailed description of newsworthiness at www.cybercollege.com).
Be aware though, that newsworthiness along can provide no clear guarantee as to the attractiveness of your story or material. True journalists, I'm sure, are with me in rueing the impacts of checkbook journalism and celebrity-fever on the calibre of news with a tendency today for front-pagers to be dominated by a fawning kind of populism. Opinion masquerading as news has tarnished the quality of many news reports in my view.
Still, if you haven't managed to secure a picture of Rihanna's cellulite to help sell your site, be assured that if your material is timely, relevant and valuable, you will have an audience somewhere.
Happy blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)