In the course of my job as a financial journalist and in following my oft-nerdy curiosity, I found myself reading a financial column today with this headline on top: "General Electric: Genuine risk of collapse?"
It was interesting and discussed a possibility I had not read about elsewhere. The writer pointed out that the gigantic corporation has more to do with banking and financial services than it does with innovation of earth-friendly technologies -- or "ecomagination" as the TV ads say. So, like any financial services company right now, GE could be in a bit of trouble.
The signs point to a company that's at least a little concerned about its cash position and very heavy on debt, and so the writer of the column concludes that GE could be on the verge of a collapse.
Or, uh, I think that's what he concludes.
Actually, maybe he doesn't conclude anything. He just suggests a lot of things and tops them off with a question.
Don't get me wrong: it's a valid discussion and an interesting read. But after reading it, I began to notice just how many of the "news" headlines I saw online ended in question marks today.
I spotted headlines such as "Is Citigroup for sale?" and "An Obama New Deal?" and "Pam Anderson: Pinhead or Patriot?"
Granted, the Obama article is obviously a commentary and speculation piece, and the Pam Anderson bit is Fox News dribble. But how about this one: "CNN Ticker: Obama picks national security advisor?" First of all, the very notion of a ticker is that it delivers breaking news. I'm not sure how it can be breaking news if you have a question mark at the end. Secondly, the headline is clearly a declarative sentence, designed to state a fact. It's totally illogical to end it in a question mark.
Among my favorites of the day: "Does Mars photo prove aliens exist?" At least this sentence is actually a question.
I have mixed feelings about this barrage of skeptically punctuated headlines. First, as a curious reader who wants to know about the important events of the day, I fear it is going to get even harder for me to keep tabs on the news that matters. If news organizations steadily increase the amount of forward-looking speculation in their reporting (which is not a new concept, I realize), readers will have to spend extra time and thought filtering out which ideas are worth consideration and which ones have been weakly imagined by reporters and editors as a way to fill the "news hole".
As if information overload wasn't enough.
On the other hand, as a writer who likes both journalism and creative writing, I think this could really open up new possibilities for my career. See, the great thing about writing speculation is that you don't have to do so much damn fact-checking. Writers are free to look at a situation, think up possible scenarios that could result, and then write about that possibility, leaning heavily on words like "could" and "might" -- and of course, ending the headline with a question mark.
(Honestly, this sounds painfully similar to my job now, but at least in this case my company's subscribers are investment professionals who know they're paying for speculation, not mass-media consumers who are prone to confuse the articles with affirmative announcements of breaking news.)
At the extreme of this trend, I can envision a new offshoot of the narrative journalism genre -- creative journalism. You know: reporters take real-world people and events and create interesting subplots or side-stories to go along with the news of the day. Part of the fun for the readers would be trying to figure out what's real and what's totally made up.
I'm kidding? Good journalists would never do that?
They certainly aren't already doing it now? At the New York Times, for example?
I know, enough already.
(?)
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
If you all could just stay home a couple days, that'd be great
Funny how our brains work. Every day, we wake up for work and think, "Man, I wish I could just stay in bed and take the day off." What? Is that just me? Oh no, there, I see some hands in the back.
But then, when you and few thousand co-workers get a company memo suggesting you consider a brief vacation -- unpaid, that is -- in order to potentially help prevent more layoffs at the company... well, it just doesn't bring the satisfaction you might have hoped. That's the letter that employees at computer maker Dell recently received, as the company struggles with soft consumer spending on big-ticket items like computers.
Of course, I suppose when your company is in the final stages of an 8,900-person layoff, a memo proposing a five-day break doesn't seem so scary, relatively speaking. If nothing else, the break would give employees a little free time to look for different jobs.
Unfortunately, Dell employees aren't the only folks a little nervous about their paychecks these days. A private report estimated US companies eliminated 157,000 jobs in October, the largest single-month drop since 2002. I've been reading of layoffs and/or bankruptcies among restaurants, auto dealers, pharmaceutical companies, retail chains, and manufacturers, to name a few. And, in particular, I've seen announcements by some major manufacturing companies planning more major layoffs and plant closures in the fourth quarter this year, in preparation for what they expect to be a tough 2009.
Why am I getting all business-and-economic-newsy on you? Mostly because it freaks me out a little bit. It's a rather scary time to be having a baby. Knowing that my paycheck comes from those big banks and investment banks that keep making headlines for their failures, I get a little uneasy at times. If I were to lose my job, the fact is I have few if any marketable skills beyond writing and editing, and I'm afraid those aren't the types of jobs that companies consider indispensable when budgets are tight.
I'm not asking you to lose any sleep over me and the fam, though. My company keeps reporting decent sales numbers, including 13% growth over 2007, so far this year. And I haven't heard any buzz of layoffs -- although I don't work in an office, so I probably wouldn't hear it if there were any.
It's all just a little weird to me. At age 28, this is the first time I've ever heard people talk about being in a recession and looked around me and seen how it could very well impact me directly, without much warning. Let's hope not.
And good luck to the Dell folks. Enjoy your days off, but I'd recommend you spend at least a couple of them sending out resumes.
But then, when you and few thousand co-workers get a company memo suggesting you consider a brief vacation -- unpaid, that is -- in order to potentially help prevent more layoffs at the company... well, it just doesn't bring the satisfaction you might have hoped. That's the letter that employees at computer maker Dell recently received, as the company struggles with soft consumer spending on big-ticket items like computers.
Of course, I suppose when your company is in the final stages of an 8,900-person layoff, a memo proposing a five-day break doesn't seem so scary, relatively speaking. If nothing else, the break would give employees a little free time to look for different jobs.
Unfortunately, Dell employees aren't the only folks a little nervous about their paychecks these days. A private report estimated US companies eliminated 157,000 jobs in October, the largest single-month drop since 2002. I've been reading of layoffs and/or bankruptcies among restaurants, auto dealers, pharmaceutical companies, retail chains, and manufacturers, to name a few. And, in particular, I've seen announcements by some major manufacturing companies planning more major layoffs and plant closures in the fourth quarter this year, in preparation for what they expect to be a tough 2009.
Why am I getting all business-and-economic-newsy on you? Mostly because it freaks me out a little bit. It's a rather scary time to be having a baby. Knowing that my paycheck comes from those big banks and investment banks that keep making headlines for their failures, I get a little uneasy at times. If I were to lose my job, the fact is I have few if any marketable skills beyond writing and editing, and I'm afraid those aren't the types of jobs that companies consider indispensable when budgets are tight.
I'm not asking you to lose any sleep over me and the fam, though. My company keeps reporting decent sales numbers, including 13% growth over 2007, so far this year. And I haven't heard any buzz of layoffs -- although I don't work in an office, so I probably wouldn't hear it if there were any.
It's all just a little weird to me. At age 28, this is the first time I've ever heard people talk about being in a recession and looked around me and seen how it could very well impact me directly, without much warning. Let's hope not.
And good luck to the Dell folks. Enjoy your days off, but I'd recommend you spend at least a couple of them sending out resumes.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Palin prank -- what the others haven't told you
News outlets have widely reported on the prank phone call recently made to vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. A Montreal radio personality called and spoke to Palin, claiming to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Speaking in an exaggerated French accent, the interviewer sneakily jabbed at Palin about Joe the Plumber, her comments on seeing Russia from her home and a porno made to spoof her. Palin responded with hesitant, polite conversation until the prankster revealed himself as such, and a campaign aide took the phone to end the call.
Hysterical.
OK, well, a little funny.
Actually, it was mostly dumb, but I give the interviewer an E for effort (which is naturally right between D and F on the standard U.S. grading scale).
Palin's camp has appeared largely undisturbed by the prank, at least in its public statements. One spokesperson described Palin as "mildly amused" by the incident -- although I contend that "mildly amused" is her natural, default demeanor.
In reality, there's another reason why Palin and her people are purportedly passive about the prickly pranksters (conclusion of gratuitous alliteration). It's because Palin is just moments away from revealing a much bigger, more impressive prank.
This blogger has learned that at 9 p.m. Eastern standard time, in a presidential election special of "Saturday Night Live," Palin and her accomplices will reveal that her candidacy for VP has been a carefully executed prank on the people of the United States.
While I have not been able to obtain an exact script of the sketch, SNL insiders say the revelation will occur midway through the program as the real Palin and the Tina Fey version engage in a mock debate, during which they apparently compete to see who can make the most over-the-top idiotic statements. After the real Palin blurts out a serious of comments so ridiculous and offensive to human reasoning that even the staunchest GOP voters in the audience will reconsider their choice, Ashton Kutcher will rush out onto the stage and shout: "America, you've been Punk'd!"
Campaign insiders tell us that a new vice presidential nominee will then be introduced. They wouldn't name him for fear of spoiling the surprise, but they did hint they he was older, whiter and better endowed (in the penis department) than Palin.
The stated motives for the Palin stunt vary widely depending whom we ask. GOP campaign insiders describe the intent as two-fold: A) The party wanted to appear hip and in touch with the young, TV/Internet generation by dropping a major news item for some last-minute publicity, and B) They couldn't get a real candidate to agree to join the ticket in time for a traditional announcement.
However, people close to Kutcher and Fey (who were both instrumental in the prank since its beginning) say the TV stars will describe the prank as one carried out strictly for entertainment purposes. Meanwhile, there's chatter that the liberal Hollywood types have been secretly steering the plan in a direction that would discourage voters from electing the GOP ticket.
Whatever the case, this hoax obviously took a lot of cunning and coordination. One insider suggested that McCain himself hasn't been told yet that Palin is not his real running mate. The same source also said Barack Obama was even in on the prank: "Think of him as the hedge fund short-seller to the plan -- betting on failure by the GOP."
Well, McCain/Palin, it's been a zany ride. Boy, do we all feel silly now.
Hysterical.
OK, well, a little funny.
Actually, it was mostly dumb, but I give the interviewer an E for effort (which is naturally right between D and F on the standard U.S. grading scale).
Palin's camp has appeared largely undisturbed by the prank, at least in its public statements. One spokesperson described Palin as "mildly amused" by the incident -- although I contend that "mildly amused" is her natural, default demeanor.
In reality, there's another reason why Palin and her people are purportedly passive about the prickly pranksters (conclusion of gratuitous alliteration). It's because Palin is just moments away from revealing a much bigger, more impressive prank.
This blogger has learned that at 9 p.m. Eastern standard time, in a presidential election special of "Saturday Night Live," Palin and her accomplices will reveal that her candidacy for VP has been a carefully executed prank on the people of the United States.
While I have not been able to obtain an exact script of the sketch, SNL insiders say the revelation will occur midway through the program as the real Palin and the Tina Fey version engage in a mock debate, during which they apparently compete to see who can make the most over-the-top idiotic statements. After the real Palin blurts out a serious of comments so ridiculous and offensive to human reasoning that even the staunchest GOP voters in the audience will reconsider their choice, Ashton Kutcher will rush out onto the stage and shout: "America, you've been Punk'd!"
Campaign insiders tell us that a new vice presidential nominee will then be introduced. They wouldn't name him for fear of spoiling the surprise, but they did hint they he was older, whiter and better endowed (in the penis department) than Palin.
The stated motives for the Palin stunt vary widely depending whom we ask. GOP campaign insiders describe the intent as two-fold: A) The party wanted to appear hip and in touch with the young, TV/Internet generation by dropping a major news item for some last-minute publicity, and B) They couldn't get a real candidate to agree to join the ticket in time for a traditional announcement.
However, people close to Kutcher and Fey (who were both instrumental in the prank since its beginning) say the TV stars will describe the prank as one carried out strictly for entertainment purposes. Meanwhile, there's chatter that the liberal Hollywood types have been secretly steering the plan in a direction that would discourage voters from electing the GOP ticket.
Whatever the case, this hoax obviously took a lot of cunning and coordination. One insider suggested that McCain himself hasn't been told yet that Palin is not his real running mate. The same source also said Barack Obama was even in on the prank: "Think of him as the hedge fund short-seller to the plan -- betting on failure by the GOP."
Well, McCain/Palin, it's been a zany ride. Boy, do we all feel silly now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
