What vs How

By coincidence I received a request from two different people at the same moment to post the same information to our site. The style of the requests were completely different and goes to illustrate a couple of different things that have evolved during the electronic age.

Request one: can u post
Request two: Can we post this on our alert page? (followed by the page url)

Evolution one would have to be the loss of politeness.  It is not always what you ask, as in the case, but how you ask. As you can imagine my response to the one request was probably similar to being barked at by a dog and my response to the other was probably a little more reasonable.

Evolution two may assist in the clarification of  the loss of politeness. Evolution two is the loss of grammar or possibly the eradication of grammar. I recall a conversation I had with a colleague almost twenty-years ago in which we discussed the loss of eloquence. At the time my colleague had just seen an exhibit of letters from the second World War. Someone at the exhibit had relayed their dismay at how young people could no longer write properly. Not in concern to handwriting but regarding storytelling and the use of the English language. I am sure some of the dismay had to be about poor grammar. I often fall prey to poor grammar but it is typically the result of me being excessively complicated and not from over simplifying. The amount of green lines that appear in some of my documents often outnumber the number of hyperbolic statements I make.

Being grammatically correct is a form of politeness. It states to the reader that the writer cares enough about both the subject matter in which he or she is writing about and cares enough about the reader to take the time to write correctly. I can come up with several reasons why in the electronic age we use abbreviated words in a grammar-less message: keyboard and screen size, on the move, it has become the convention, it doesn’t matter as long as the message is conveyed. As many lawyers may tell you “there are always exceptions to the rules but the truth be told I believe we should always make the effort to use proper grammar. Certainly in our writing, conversational grammar versus colloquial speech is a horse of a different color all together.

As an advanced society with great number of tools to correct our grammar, spelling and generally atrocious writing, as well as teaching tools, style guides, grammar podcasts, and with social media hounding our every slip-up I might think or even expect our grammar and our writing to improve. I will make a promise the few people who read this blog, I will make every effort possible to use proper grammar when writing entries to this blog. I will even go so far as to promise the same when I tweet. Although, 140 characters can be a limit, thankfully it can also be a blessing.

*Any grammatical errors ain’t my fault.

Posted in interaction, mobile, social media | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What vs How

140 Characters but No Engagement Allowed

According to Mashable.com the Washington Post has asked it’s staff to not engage people on twitter. My overwhelming first response to this is that this is the wrong approach. Twitter and social media as a whole is supposed to be “social.” That means interaction, dialogue, discussion, ranting, raving, brilliance, stupidity in a word – engagement. As I have mentioned previously I think 140 characters is a limit that many journalist and everyday folks find hard to completely express themselves. Most of us have a hard time explaining ourselves in full-blown blog posts let alone 140 characters.

Setting the character limit and the mis-communication/confused message aside take a good look at what the post is asking their staffers to do, not be who they are. Whatever form your artwork takes, written, visual, aural or somewhere in between there is a level of interactivity that you crave, actually need is a better word. Without audience participation, passive or active, these works become near meaningless. (Let’s not get into the whole art for the sake of art discussion here, either. Even if it is just for you, that is an audience of one.) For a news service, lack of audience participation can be the first toll of a death knell.

Don’t engage your audience and the story ends at the by line. Engage your audience and the discussion broadens, reveals, dispels, uncovers, and focuses.

I can almost understand the rationale of not breaking news on twitter but to not use the medium to engage with fans is just mind-boggling. As a corporation maybe the Post should put out a set of guidelines that instructs their staff on the best practices of engagement, who knows maybe they have, in which case they could work with the individual staff member/guest writer to resolve the situation.

I fear for company’s that follow the path of ESPN and now the Washington Post, both which seem to have forgotten the social in social media.

Posted in community, interaction, isolation, life, social media, technology | Comments Off on 140 Characters but No Engagement Allowed