I’ve been reading a lot about how to “break in” to certain industries, namely the writing and journalism business. Many of these “How to land a job in…” keep emphasizing that job seekers should be willing to work long ours for modest pay.

While I’m not advocating slacking off or negotiating for unreasonably high salaries, I am advocating that job seekers know their limits.

I’ve worked in a job where I was living paycheck to paycheck, with an overdraft every quarter. I worked 14 hours a day as a federal tax exempt employee – which means no over-time, folks. Was I passionate about what I was doing? Absolutely. Was I treated fairly? Not at all.

All organizations and business have a responsibility to their employees – that they can put food on the table and not become shells of their former selves.

Here’s the thing about the brain: your talents and skills have diminishing returns after you reach a certain point. You get lazier. You’re not as quick to notice mistakes. Your work suffers.

So how does a reporter working long hours help a news organization? It doesn’t. In fact, the more overworked your staff the shoddier the reporting gets. Why would a news organization, the OCDs of facts and truth, want their staff to become exhausted and sloppy?

The breaks I take really only benefit my employers. How? Ask Don Draper.

Get down into the details. Learn as much as you possible can handle. Follow every lead. Then forget all about it. The story will unravel itself.

No related posts.

Anyway. So James, in an effort to be different, purports that there is a great conspiracy afoot that advises bloggers to stick to a schedule. Even though those dispensing the advice, James being one of them, are all like, “This sucks. I want to be on a yacht right now.”

First of all, everyone’s creative process is its own unique snowflake. Heck, even in “On Writing Well,” Zinsser proclaims in one of his chapters that he and another respected writer had opposing views on how to write. Zinsser has to write everyday or else he’ll lose it. The other writer is all whimsy and inspiration. He can’t write unless the fancy strikes him. And other people have weirdo traditions.

Secondly, James uses some loopy logic about readers getting bored. I admit, I get bored with MWP’s blog posts because it seems to be regurgitating the same dribble every month or so. Anyone in the news business will tell you that won’t fly because people want to know what’s new. No one ever asks, “Hey how did that thing 10 years ago turn out? I was around at the time, but I want you to repeat it me right now. I’ll ask you again in the future to remind me of what happened 15 or 20 years ago.”

This point is correct:

Let’s forget the cheap Chinese buffet rule of having consistent blogging schedule and ditch it in favour of an occasional steak dinner. The kind you save up for and enjoy. The kind you really savour. The kind you look forward to because it’s rare. And because it’s that good.

I’m of the opinion that if you’re gonna write something, add new insight. Any editor will tell you that, otherwise you won’t get published. Unless you work for a Men’s or Women’s magazine (ba-dum-ching!). If you’re not adding to the conversation, shut up. That should free up your schedule some, no?

Third, James says that writing despite your feelings is bad for you. Actually, it’s better for your writing and for you in general.

If you succumb to your own paranoid thinking, you’ll never get shit done. This is why the Buddhist (here I go again!) precept of “doing what needs to be done right now” is so important.

Yes, if your kids are crying and you’ve got mold in your bathtub, those things take priority over writing. If nothing but your feelings are getting in the way of your writing, just sit your ass down and write, damnit. You’ll be better for it. Unless you have a rich spouse who can support your whimsical schedule, you’re gonna need to get over yourself to finish that post lambasting that other blogger.

Overall, I think James here is being disingenuous to get hits.

I’m here to tell you that if you follow the basic rules of writing, as outlined in the inexpensive and everlasting book “On Writing Well” or even “The Elements of Journalism,” you’ll do fine.

The most important thing is to find out what works for you, get over yourself, do the work that needs to be done, and be comfortable being uncomfortable.

No related posts.

Saunders defines “layering” as: 

I define “layering” as strategically deciding to do tasks that require different “channels” of mental functioning such as visual, auditory, manual or language. As David Meyer, one of the world’s leading experts on multitasking, explains in this New York magazine article , “The only time multitasking does work efficiently is when multiple simple tasks operate on entirely separate channels.”

It’s true that you can’t do two verbal tasks at the same time – such as driving and talking. You may not think driving is a verbal task but it is because you are constantly processing “verbal cues” like signs and signals. Talking while driving disrupts those processes.

So Saunders iterates that you can mix up these channels to do two things at once like listening to a podcast and tidying up your desk or eating a sandwich and reading a book.

Some of her examples seem weird to me. For example, I would not talk to friends or read a book while running on a treadmill because, really, some tasks require your full attention so that you don’t injure yourself. You know what I mean, gym rats.

On the other hand, sometimes I need to do “physical” tasks in order to work through some mental ideas. I drafted this blog post, a cover letter and a to-do list while I was washing the dishes not 10 minutes ago. Because I tend to do this daily, I have pens and notebooks scattered about to make sure I capture a brain wave (even if it turns into more of a brain blip).

My rules of layering are:

- Make sure one of the tasks you’re doing won’t cause you injury without your full attention

- Keep a notebook by you at all times to jot down random thoughts

- Don’t get too lost in your thoughts otherwise you’ll have a very irate Burger King cashier screaming, “NEXT CUSTOMER!” at you while simultaneously deciding whether or not to spit in your mayo

Safety first.

No related posts.

I’m cuckoo for Coco Puffs. – Aileen Wornos

A trick of the trade in the blogging world is coming up with a good series that readers will wait in anticipation for you to post then share wildly with their friends. But how do you know if your series idea is gonna be good for the long haul?

First of all, not all series have to be life long. They can be short and thematic (that you hopefully remember to link to all parts at the end of each post). Typically these series aim to solve a unique but common problem for their readers. Because they are so useful and informational, they often become very popular and emblematic of that blog.

A series that is constantly updated however can be a little trickier. And that’s what I aim to help you with in three easy steps.

Can you come up with 10 specific posts?

Once you come up with a genius idea for a series, you have to plum its depths. This requires a lot of research and example hoarding (e.g. bookmarking, link listing). Try to find at least 10 substantial ideas for specific posts in the series. If you find yourself struggling, maybe it’s time to hang up the idea or find a new angle. If however you feel that you’ve only scratched the surface, well then go on, you handsome devil!

Can you cover multiple angles? 

All the posts in the series can’t have the same angle. That would be boring. Often, you’ll find patterns to develop a sub-series…a series within a series, if you will. And you know that everyone loves a subplot. Sometimes (1). But anyway, something to break up the large chunk of the topic will usually be a welcome respite.

Is it sustainable?

The way to evaluate if this is a long lasting series is if it’s something that continues to happen. Like horrible advertising (2). Or disastrous fashion choices (3). These things won’t ever stop. But you don’t have to exploit people’s mistakes to find a good series – although those are the most hilarious options. I can’t think of any good-deed type series at the moment, but I’m sure you’ll tell me, my dear smart and charitable readers.

Now that you’ve checked off the list, I strongly recommend writing those 10 posts today or soon while you’re on that fresh idea high.

Go forth and serialize!

1. Example of a boring subplot everyone hates all the time: http://www.omega-level.net/tag/boring-subplots/

2. Copyranter: http://copyranter.blogspot.com/

3. Go Fug Yourself: http://gofugyourself.com/

No related posts.

Except that homelessness is very much apparent and people often just ignore them. Also, I think this system vastly underestimates the underground network of the homeless. Wonder how there can be overweight homeless people? First, their diet consists of dollar menu items from fast food chains. Second, because this food is cheap, they buy a lot with their busker wages and share with others in the network. 

I commend these designers for thinking of the homeless, but a little more research needs to be done. 

No related posts.

“…so long as we have a monetization model of information that prioritizes the wrong stakeholders — advertisers over readers — we will always cater to the business interests of the former, not the intellectual interests of the latter.”

I’ve been feeling the sort of cognitive dissonance lately when I think back on some of the class discussions I had in grad school. There was a minor debate on where advertising goes and how it should correspond with the article being read in an effort to be more useful to the user. At the time I thought that this made practical sense. Maybe I’m becoming a romantic in my old age, but this has become a jarring echo.

When I met up with a local publisher, I asked her about the tenor of the journalism industrial complex of D.C. and some of her thoughts on the whole “journalism is dead” thing. She explained to me about how advertising and reporting are becoming more and more muddled in newsrooms so the onus is on journalists to churn out articles that get those precious hits and unique views.

Indeed, the current experiment over at Gawker is an example of this – half the staff is tasked with putting up salacious stories while the other half do something…else. I don’t know what because Gawker isn’t exactly a bastion of journalism. They break stories all right but rarely are they earth-shattering and more often scandalous.

Popova laments the state of journalism repeating stories and beating a fresh story into a dead carcass while will continue to be beaten,

“The homogenization of curiosity is something that keeps me up at night, as does the thickening of the filter bubble, from mainstream churnalism to smaller and niche publications’ propensity for regurgitating MetaFilter or Reddit headlines — our modern-day newswires.”

This piques my interest because as my conversation with my friend revealed (and some experiments with hyper-local news adventures), people don’t care that much about local news. And this is really where a lot of original content will come from. They become grander when other news outlets pick up on it and notice a pattern. [This may someday become easier with the implementation of the semantic web and the Open Government movement, explained here by another friend, Kristen Milholin.]

So if people aren’t actually curious about things that are closest to them and are driven by the scandals of tabloids and visual candy of slideshows – then what are we, as serious journalists, supposed to do about that?

Popova has one idea:

“Until we, as an information culture in general and as media producers in particular, figure out a way to reinstate the editor as the visionary and the reader as the stakeholder, the Internet will remain a dismal landscape for intelligent, compelling media.”

I take issue with the whole “dismal landscape” gibe. I find all kinds of wonderful things on the outer reaches of the Internet. So I don’t think editors have any power over what readers do; readers are stakeholders no matter model you come up with. It’s just that they don’t behave in ways we want them to.

There are two ways to look at this problem:

1. The problem is us. We as a culture need to value the importance of our role in local and national society. Instead of putting our interests first, we need to think outside of ourselves and pay attention to what’s happening to our neighbors.

I know, that sounds all kinds of preachy. But what will anyone care about an environmental spill in the Gulf of Mexico if we don’t feel we can do anything about it and if we don’t see how something matters even if it doesn’t affect us directly and immediately? Harder still, if we don’t think we can do anything about anything, who cares about the next bill to come through city council – good or bad?

There are no business models that will change journalism and the market. The market needs to get over itself and its endless search for entertainment.

2. The problem is the Internet. On the internet, information is free and some bloggers, out of the goodness of their heart, report on events that some local journalists won’t or can’t. They are flooding the market with free information. And there isn’t anything to be done about that. There is great stuff out there…there is also horrible stuff.

As media outlets lose control and information becomes decentralized, there’s no way any editor – even at CNN – can change the digital landscape. Otherwise, no one is going to pay for something they can get for free and agrees with their sentimentalities.

We’re left with the quandary of: is commodifying information ethical? Is not paying a writer, researcher, or journalist to find that information and present it ethical? What’s the third alternative?

Beats me, dude. But I will continue to write about stories that I find important, entertaining, fun and serious. I hope Popova does the same.

No related posts.

“All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth.” – Orson Welles

This is the infernal question many a journalist must ask whenever they get a tip or overhear a conversation in the bathroom stalls of The Caucus Room. But a seasoned journo can evaluate in two seconds whether a story has legs because of her years of networking and hiding out in toilets. She knows the players, the rumors, the trumors, and the rumths.

If you’re a green cub reporter or even just a wannabe freelance writer, you may not be able to tell if the random blog post you read on the outer reaches of the internet can make the FOB or the Well. Most of the time, the editors you’re pitching won’t care to tell you why your story needs a root canal.

As someone in-between green and yellow, here are my strategies to figuring out if the story is worth the paper it will be printed on…or the hits from reader clicks.

At the center of every good story is conflict…

Capulet versus Montague. Faust versus the Devil. Harry Potter versus Voldemort. Snooki versus the World. All great stories need a conflict and hopefully a resolution.

There doesn’t have to be a clear hero – that belongs in fiction. And if you’re wondering how a story can revolve around two villains, I invite you to watch Alien vs. Predator or even Freddy vs. Jason.

But people do want a likable person in a story. In journalism, that likable person is often the reader. “Oh, dear reader, you’re so smart and enterprising for reading this article that will change your view of this whole situation. How can you and anyone else live without knowing about the facts in this story? Spread the word!” is what we say with ev’ry keystroke.

I’m getting away from my main point, though, which is that a story needs conflict. There is conflict in everything. In environmental journalism, it’s usually Gaia versus greedy corporate interest or human apathy. Business journalism is supposed to protect consumers (That’s you, again! You’re so popular!). Journalists covering City Hall are fighting to make sure you know that your sidewalks are going to get smaller, damn those Escalade driving City Councilors!

Why is conflict important? Well, if everything was honky-dory, what the hell do you care?

That doesn’t mean all stories will end in crushing defeat of the proletariat. It just means that there has to be some juice squeezing, whether the conflict happened months or years ago.

In summary: Find the conflict in the story that preferably puts the reader in the protagonist role, those charmers.

But your conflict also has to have teeth and have an adequate answer to the question…

So what? 

I hate this question. Editors always ask this stupid question when you present a story to them. Ok, it’s not stupid but it is frustrating and I have a tendency to take things personally.

Depending on your piece, though, the answer doesn’t have to be earth shattering. The exceptions are investigative pieces – if the rag is gonna put a brick ton of money that they don’t have and hours of overworked staff time, your pitch better knock their titanium socks off. Yeah, titanium socks.

However, if you’re writing about keeping your pots clean the So What can just be a soft breeze from your derriere.

A good way to figure out the So What is researching the publication’s readership. Who are they? How old are they? Where are they in their lives? Why are they so handsome? What makes them so wonderful? What kind of angels are they – Cherubs? Seraphim? Blue?

Then you can write up your So What to hopefully solve some sort of problem (conflict!) in their lives or get them to pay more attention.

I hope this helps you, dear precious readers. If it does, please shine your ray of healing light in the comments below.

No related posts.

I know, it’s the writer’s fault for creating such an unlikable star. Katherine McPhee plays Karen Cartwright, a struggling actress trying to make it on Broadway. The show follows the beginning production of a new musical about Marilyn Monroe, who is dead, has been dead for awhile now, and will never be resurrected. But that does not deter our composers, Julia Houston (Messing) or Tom Levitt (Borle) from writing up a demo and going viral on YouTube (ha, like a Marilyn video would go viral on YouTube).

What else? Davenport plays a really skeezy director, Derek Wills. And Anjelica Houston plays a producer going through a terrible divorce,  Eileen Rand. Megan Hilty, who played Glinda in Wicked, is the actual Broadway actress trying to get a damn leg up, Ivy Lynn. Those are the basics…here are my running thoughts as document on Facebook with more exposition.

“Watching new SMASH TV show – and of course, the lead actress is complaining of being TOO SKINNY to her HOT INDIAN BRITISH BOYFRIEND. Fuck you, McPhee.”

Remember what I said about being unlikable? Boo-hoo, really. The rest of America mourns for your bourgeois problems. Except, she’s not even supposed to be bourgeois. She’s supposed to be a struggling actress who’s day job includes pouring coffee and forgetting customers. A single woman who moves to NYC from Middle America manages to capture the heart of a really good-looking British professional who works at the Mayor’s office?

Where’s my piece of this pie?

Oh and the directors didn’t think she was too skinny, as she previously thought in fact…

“Oh Dear God. She confuses “resume light” (i.e. not enough experience) with being too skinny. How self-obsessed can you be???”

With all the Sturm & Drang going on behind her little subplot, these little forays into her idiocy could be completely cut from the show and it will have improved at least 100%. At least.

Why? Because I just don’t buy this girl as the next Marilyn, or Christina or Britney or even Rebecca Black. Sorry, McPhee, but you have no chops. You can sing, but you can’t act your way out of a plastic bag. And the writer’s have written a character so wholly unbelievable. It’s not your fault, so sorry for the haterade.

But some points:

1. Breathe from your goddamn diaphragm not your chest.

2. When you audition, address the directors and composers by introducing yourself and the piece you’ll be singing. Don’t just look at the poor accompanist like…ha, this song needs no introduction! It does. Especially if it’s an Xtina song…at a Broadway audition.

3. Don’t ever sing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” ever again. Thank you.

It’s a shame because Ivy is the clear dead-ringer for Marilyn – she’s voluptuous, she oozes sex, and she has a voice that could flatten you. This “innocence” thing Derek keeps yammering on about is just inaccurate. Marilyn was calculating, don’t get it twisted.

Anyhow, all the McPhee idiocy aside, it would be a fun show to watch not least because of the NEW SONGS!!! Take that, Glee!

Will I watch? Probably not. Unless there’s nothing else on Hulu.

My Take: Watch a real Broadway musical instead. 

No related posts.

Watch the 30 minute presentation.

His words resonated with me mostly because of his observation that humans are meant to pulse. When you think about it, it’s true. We’re not digital machines that run fast and hard over long periods of time. No, we pulse.

Our heart beats. Our eyes blink. Our lungs expand and contract. Our brain waves light up and go dark.

His practical applications involve working 90 minutes at a time on one focused task then rest. He doesn’t go into how much rest you need – I guess we have to figure that out on our own.

But it’s no wonder why we’re treated like machines since we’re constantly competing with them. We can never be as efficient or productive. But technology needs us to be creative and inspirational.

So put aside your keyboard and mouse. Stare outside the window for awhile.

Related posts:

1. Creative Workplaces Part 1: I Am Not A Hard Worker

Coincidentally, I did have an existential crisis of more epic proportions. It had a little to do with the Buddhist idea of “no self.” But rather than being debilitatingly scary, it really released me from my own preconceived notions about myself as well as those of others.

In three months I’ll have another “awakening” with new goals and a new hair do, but I’m more prepared now to smack myself if that new attitude is really just my ego trying to build itself up.

However, my recent crisis did produce some other, more practical, insights. My goals everyday are:

- Do what needs to be done right now. Don’t focus on your feelings but on the actions that need to be done.

- Don’t get wrapped up in what I think I should be but on what I want to do.

- Eat a megaton of leafy greens.

- Write every morning. Research the rest of the day.

By the way, I’m not announcing this because I think you’ll keep my accountable. What a burden that is on you! Unless you like being a pushy jerk who laughs at everyone’s flaws…

I’m writing this down in case any of you have the same ideas or needed to be reminded of what your own goals are. But look forward to a “fall off the wagon” post in the near future. It’s inevitable.

I hope all your existential crises are as fruitful…Happy New Year!

No related posts.