ch215
The most common example is journalists' aversion to repeating words like 'said' or 'told'. People don't _say_ things any more, they: continue, explain, add, verbalise, enunciate, vocalise, and so on.
Campaign to stop Google and Facebook destroying journalism
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press-gazette-launches-duopoly...
The Times and the Sunday Times Are Now HTTPS
France Lets Workers Turn Off, Tune Out and Live Life
The garden shed full of helping hands
Ask HN: How to find results removed from Google under 'right to be forgotten'?
Hello,I'm a journalist looking for a way to identify results removed under EU law. I'd like a big set of pages to search/analyse.I'm struggling to get my head around how to do this. If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears!
:: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
:: Never use a long word where a short one will do.
:: If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
:: Never use the passive where you can use the active.
:: Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
:: Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Red tape and a three-year FOI battle with Cabinet Office
City AM becomes first UK newspaper to ban ad blocker users
Matt Drudge: I don't need to be 'liked'
It's not so much about having no trust in my superiors. I work at a newspaper company but in editorial and the idea is on the business side of the "church and state" divide.
It's an ailing industry, which could do with any revenue stream it can get its hands on, and I just want to help where I can.
Ask HN: Should I take an idea to the chief executive?
I have a suggestion which could add a six-or-seven-figure income stream to a business I've not long joined. I'm a lowly worker, on the first rung of management, and the company employs thousands.I'm considering whether to email the idea to the chief executive. I just don't want to see it lost in layers of management and I'm not sure who else can make it happen.I lack self-confidence so I'm...
I'm of the motherfuckingwebsite.com school of thought--an evangelist for simple design--but I think simple and unique often go hand-in-hand.
Take my industry: newspapers. Ninety-nine percent take a flat-pack, everyfuckingwebsite.com approach. I think that conformity compromises design. Readability should be at the heart of most sites--let alone news sites--yet I find most hard to read for colours, distractions and so on.
The news websites I enjoy are simple and unique--like the Drudge Report and Hacker News, which are pretty much just a list of links with minimal layers. I think that gets to the core of my purpose as a reader: no bullshit clicking around for ages to find what I want/need to read--just here's the news in our view.
For me, that's a big reason for the Daily Mail's success too. Content aside, I think their presentation of news is second to none. You could argue it's like a lot of sites but I disagree: few run tall pictures, nine-deck headlines and so on. MailOnline's production is similar to the way editors put a page together for print. They've transitioned much of the craft online. I think that's how the website retains something of a newspaper 'feel' which most have lost.
Anyway, I should stop writing, I'm going off on tangents and probably talking gibberish, just wanted to chuck in my 2p.