Writing, editing, design

“Fail” and “epic fail” seem to be showing up more and more in the tweets I read. Both went viral on the web about a year ago and people assign the terms to both simple and catastrophic fumbles, stumbles and, of course, failures.

According to Slate’s Christopher Beam (Oct. 2008), fail really took off when the blog Failblog started up in May, 2008. Failblog set up a taxonomy of what constituted various levels of fail and of epic fail, the highest fail there can be.

I want to introduce a subtle variation on the theme: FLAIL and, of course, EPIC FLAIL.

A flail differs from a fail mainly in scope. Whereas fail represents the inability to do something, a failure being utter and complete, a flail represents a bad performance on something most people can do easily, but it’s not a complete failure. Just an inept, incompetent, or incomplete performance, usually by someone who believes they are very good.

For instance, an act deserving a fail might be forgetting to put the top up on your convertible during a thunderstorm; a flail would be if you go out to put the top up and you forget your keys and have to dash back through the rain to get them. Then you grab the wrong keys. If you then finally put the top up, but forget to close the windows, it would be approach epic flail status or almost total incompetence, especially if you were going off on people who don’t take care of their cars like you do when the storm hit.

Flail also involves people who think they know what they are doing but don’t, their lack of self-awareness providing much entertainment for those around them.

You run into a lot of flailers in amateur sports and in bars and in school. A person who has the most expensive golf clubs and brags about it, but fails to break 100? Flail. A person who has the most expensive golf clubs and loses his grip during a swing so that the club ends up in the pond? Epic flail.

A guy who walks up to an attractive woman in a bar and gets rejected is a fail. A guy who walks up to an attractive woman in a bar trailing a long piece of toilet paper stuck to his shoe and gets rejected is a flail.

A poor student who turns in bad work or zeroes an exam is obviously a fail. A student who believes his weak paper was directly dictated to him by God, and who doesn’t agree with the prof that a mere 10 errors in the first three paragraphs is too many, is a flail.

The difference is subtle but important. Anyone can fail, but only the blindly incompetent can flail.

Instead of trying to keep up with three — and sometimes four — blogs, I am now going to do all my posts here. Soon, I will move over all the posts from my general blog and my newspaper design blog. from News Design School.

As part of my re-focusing of my writing, editing and design work, I have decided to move more aggressively into videos and podcasts. Got a new mic and new tripod for camera.

I am backing out a bit on Twitter. Tiring of the crowds and spam. Complained in a tweet about all the p*rn and int3rn*t m*rket1ng (hey, why take a chance here???) “followers.” Immediately, I was hit with four tweets from IMers and two from young girls who wanted — to quote the Bard — to “make the beast with two backs” with me.

More soon.

I have been playing around with Twitter — the 140-character tapas of writing — for several months now and have come to mixed conclusions as to its worth. Apparently, I am not alone as Twitter has a pretty good churn rate after 30 days, according to the WP.

On the plus side, I have been led to some great web sites and articles. That has been very good, but I am not sure that outweighs the negatives. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Some people seem compelled to tweet their every thought — and most of these people appear to have salient thoughts in their heads that would sound, if they were made physical, like two BBs rolling around in an empty tuna fish can. They suffer from a mind-numbing twitterhea. I don’t need to know you are bored tonight or read the drunken conversation you overheard in a bar.

2. Other people seem to do the above and then re-tweet what I already get from the original twitterer, probably in an attempt to push as many tweets as possible. Didn’t we follow one another because of similar interests in the first place? There is no need to re-tweet to fellow travelers.

3. Some tweets are simply empty and obvious marketing moves, sort of tweeted junk mail. I don’t mind links to relevant blog links (I’ve even done that once or twice.), but don’t keep trying to sell me on links to marginal copy.

4. Many tweets are just fluff, simplistic ideas that are the written equivalent of like, uh and um in spoken language: they take up space unnecessarily. A well-known designer took the time to let everyone know that content is more important than design and design should support the content. Well, duh. Share your genius not platitudes.

5. Finally and this is rather like No. 4, some real experts in a field seem to think that we want reports on their daily life instead of insights and thoughts along the lines of their professional expertise. As an example, I follow the Getting Things Done guru, David Allen. I had hoped for some good daily tips. Instead I have found out about wine, gardening and the weather in Ojai, Calif. Interesting, but not what I hoped for. I’ll stay a follower, however, because the occasional gem is in there.

I have been guilty of a few of these, in part because I felt the need to say something once or twice a day, but no more. Tomorrow I cull my “following” herd and will tweet only what I think is truly important, even if I am silent for awhile.

I am sure the Twitterati will be saddened…. The Muse is merely miffed.

I have been playing around with Twitter for several months now and have come to mixed conclusions as to its worth. Apparently, I am not alone as Twitter has a pretty good churn rate after 30 days, according to the WP.

On the plus side, I have been led to some great web sites and articles. That has been very good, but I am not sure that outweighs the negatives. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Some people seem compelled to tweet their every thought — and most of these people appear to have salient thoughts in their heads that would sound, if they were made physical, like two BBs rolling around in an empty tuna fish can. They suffer from a mind-numbing twitterhea. I don’t need to know you are bored tonight or read the drunken conversation you overheard in a bar.

2. Other people seem to do the above and then re-tweet what I already get from the original twitterer, probably in an attempt to push as many tweets as possible. Didn’t we follow one another because of similar interests in the first place? There is no need to re-tweet to fellow travelers.

3. Some tweets are simply empty and obvious marketing moves, sort of tweeted junk mail. I don’t mind links to relevant blog links (I’ve even done that once or twice.), but don’t keep trying to sell me on links to marginal copy.

4. Many tweets are just fluff, simplistic ideas that are the written equivalent of  like, uh and um in spoken language: they take up space unnecessarily. A well-known designer took the time to let everyone know that content is more important than design and design should support the content. Well, duh. Share your genius not platitudes.

5. Finally and this is rather like No. 4, some real experts in a field seem to think that we want reports on their daily life instead of insights and thoughts along the lines of their professional expertise. As an example, I follow the Getting Things Done guru, David Allen. I had hoped for some good daily tips. Instead I have found out about wine, gardening and the weather in Ojai, Calif. Interesting, but not what I hoped for. I’ll stay a follower, however, because the occasional gem is in there.

I have been guilty of a few of these, in part because I felt the need to say something once or twice a day, but no more. Tomorrow I cull my “following” herd and will tweet only what I think is truly important, even if I am silent for awhile.

I am sure the Twitterati will be saddened….

Today marks the demise of the Rocky Mountain News. A sad day to be sure, but it should be another cold slap in the face to publishers everywhere. If you don’t adjust your business model, soon you’ll have no business.

It has been my experience that newspapers are incredibly reluctant to change, even as they read about the trials and tribulations in the industry every day. Despite evidence to the contrary, they seem to keep doing the same old things. Change is necessary, and the changes newspapers have to make to remain alive are not small or easy ones. But change must occur.

One of the many ideas that publishers are having a tough time dealing with is the interactive aspect of news web sites (and can include the print product, too). It is no longer a one-way street. Readers want to be a part of the action. What? Turn over content to the readers???

It’s called User Generated Content (UGC), and you need to make room for it on your web sites and tease to your UGC in the print product. I have talked about this in earlier posts. Set up reader blogs, wikis, photo galleries, and areas where special interest groups can get together and interact with one another. Get a few of your more creative staffers to start blogs as well. Readers will start jumping in with comments.

Get your your paper and your reporters on Twitter. Some readers will want to follow the paper or a particular reporter or both. You can report live action, send out follow-up links to important stories, get story ideas sent to you, and keep up with what people are talking about. Twitter is gaining more traction every day. (You can follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/newsdesign.)

UGC seems to make so much sense because YOU don’t have to pay for it, yet readers want to read or see it. And advertisers are likely to want a piece of the action, too. That’s the point of all this isn’t it? Stop thinking about the old model. Your readers want more.

I also believe that many would be willing to pay for access to a web site that offers them information, interaction, and a pleasurable experience. Many would disagree with me, but I truly believe that if your web site is good enough, and you limit access to some portions of it to subscribers to the print product, you will find takers. Of course, you need to improve your print product as well….

An interesting piece along these lines from a British blog can be found here. Ideas worth thinking about.

Need some help going interactive? Let me help. E-mail me with your questions.

My experiment with Twitter will continue, despite my initial
reservations. I have found it to be useful in gaining all sorts of
information that has been helpful and interesting. I can see how
journalists could use it to better their work and attract/keep more
readers.

I can also see how it would be useful in gaining new sources for
stories, especially in the middle of a breaking story. You could
have, for instance, searched for people who were Tweeting during
Katrina and gathered all sorts of useful information and quotes.

Here are some things I have gathered from the web:

1. Good way to spot and follow trends
2. Again, it is searchable for interesting keywords
3. Good way to build a good list of sources to follow
4. It is way to make journalists seem more human to their readers,
sort of different from years ago, but very suitable in our social
media world. Journos don’t need to get TOO personal, but a few
personal tidbits here and there will help keep readers connected.
Not a bad idea in today’s media world.
5. You can even use Twitter to send out breaking information: a
wreck on I-95, something unusual at a city council meeting, etc.
6. Not only can individual journalists use Twitter, but the paper
can create a persona or just use the newspaper’s name, and send
update information to followers — who are likely the younger group
you are trying to reach — about pop culture news you get on web
feeds or breaking news.

So there you have it. I think it is worth looking into. You can follow me at

http://twitter.com/newsdesign