The title of this post doesn't actually mean what most people would think it means (i.e., the continual criticism about fact checking, and how MSM does it but bloggers don't). No.

I ran across this post by Michelle Malkin, in which she republishes an email from Nick Kristof:

michelle,

thanks belatedly for your note about hillary and abortions. i was in zimbabwe, skulking around and pretending to be a tourist, and didn't have web access. but now i did have a chance to look at your web link, and i'm afraid i disagree.

you're right that it was stassen's work that originally pointed me to this issue and that the data cover only 16 states. but stassen has considerable credibility, since he is himself pro-life and trained in statistics, and others in the repro health field have found his work sensible. moreover, while the data are incomplete, the states represented include a range of different geographic areas and seem representative. and among those 16 states, the trend was very clear. Stassen calculates that there are 50,000 more abortions a year than if the previous trend had continued.

I repost it here not because I have any interest whatsoever in the content (which is to say, the message), but rather (as McCluhan might have said) the media that is in this case the message. This is an opinion columnist for the New York Times, who doesn't seem to know the location of the shift key.

I don't want to single out Mr. Kristof here, but this just happened to catalyze my thoughts on this subject, that I've noticed in the past. Is it an email thing? Or does he submit columns like this, and let his editor clean them up? I've noticed the same thing when conversing with actual book authors--the email is often all lower-case. At least in Mr. Kristof's case, the email is otherwise well-written and grammatical, but I've often received emails from so-called journalists for which this wasn't even the case.

I would never send out an email like the one posted here--I'd be embarrassed for anyone to see my writing in such a form--and if I had no other knowledge of Mr. Kristof's work, I wouldn't be very impressed with him as a writer, or even thinker. Maybe this is an irrational prejudice on my part, but it seems to me that if you want to communicate as well as possible, you want people to focus on the message, and not be distracted by a poor presentation of it.

My point is that I suspect that many "professional" writers (which is to say that people, like reporters, who actually get paid to write, however amateurishly they may actually practice their craft, such as it is) also have professional editors, who serve as a backstop for them against grammatical and spelling errors. I can't help but believe that this tends to make many of them sloppy.

I don't have that luxury. Whatever I post is seen by no eyes except mine until it's printed on line, for everyone who chooses to, to see. I know there are some blogs that disdain the use of the shift key, and perhaps if you can get past that, the writing is very good and interesting, but I have trouble getting past it. I figure that few people are going to be turned off by proper capitalization, and surely I'm not unique in that I'm turned off by a lack of it, so why not do it right, in both email and blog posts?

But I think that it points up just one more area in which (amateur) bloggers can (because they have to be) better writers than MSM journalists. It's not just that we know more about specific subjects, but we also present it better, because we are our own editors, and we know that if we don't get it right, in both fact and presentation, our hits will drop, or never appear at all. Contrast that to a writer in a one-newpaper town, like Los Angeles, to whom neither facts or grammar are important, because there are editors for that, and their stuff will get published and read regardless, at least until the owners of the newspaper finally decide to stop subsidizing incompetence and ideology.

I totally agree with you on this, Rand. It annoys me no end to see the lazy, sloppy writing of people of all walks of life, not just journalists. You would expect that people who make their living from the written word, though, would be better at their craft! Soon, these folks won't be able to find enough competent editors to cover for them.

The thing that really bugs me is people who don't care about spelling. Oh, Word has a spellchecker, I'm not going to worry about it. OK, lazy-butt, yew halve a spelling chequer, I'm happy four ewe.

"But I think that it points up just one more area in which (amateur) bloggers can (because they have to be) better writers than MSM journalists. It's not just that we know more about specific subjects, but we also present it better, because we are our own editors, and we know that if we don't get it right, in both fact and presentation, our hits will drop,"

Huh? This makes no sense considering what you have written before. You just stated that there are bloggers who don't bother to use the shift key. There are also bloggers who don't know diddly about capitalization and abuse quotation marks, commas, and the delicate semi-colon. But they don't have anybody looking over their shoulder before they unleash their grammatical terror upon the world.

In fact, there's a grammatical error in what you wrote above. Drop out the parenthetical phrases and read the full sentence:

"But I think that it points up just one more area in which bloggers can better writers than MSM journalists."

Oops. Should be "can BE better writers" right?

Face it, a lot of blogging is crap. You self-filter that out and don't read the crap. But one could argue that writers for the MSM _have_ to meet a higher standard at least at some point because they have to convince somebody to pay them. If this MSM writer wrote sheer crap all the time, he wouldn't have a job. If a blogger writes sheer crap all the time, he can still blog.

I've seen lots of excellent writers who are really lazy in e-mail. But they can produce excellent final drafts because they edit themselves before they hand it over to an editor. Most bloggers never bother.

Face it, a lot of blogging is crap.

Who said otherwise? Since we weren't talking about all, or even most, blogs and bloggers, Ken, I fail to see your point. I was talking about the bloggers who actually care about what they write, and whether anyone else reads it.

Sturgeon's law apples to blogs just as it does to science fiction, and everything else. Nice strawman, though...

I've seen lots of excellent writers who are really lazy in e-mail. But they can produce excellent final drafts because they edit themselves before they hand it over to an editor.

So? Maybe, maybe not. How would I know? My point is that with bloggers, what you see is what you get. With Nick Kristof, the only unfiltered, unedited output that I see isn't impressive. I've no idea how badly he needs an editor, because I've no visibility into that, other than this window into his writing through his email. People can like, or dislike either the content, style, grammar and spelling of my work, but at least they know that it's mine.

And your nitpick over a missing word (a typo, not because I don't know better) is pretty funny, as though things like that never make it past a professional editor.

I think you're taking a pet peeve (which I share) and drawing a what may be false conclusion about the differences between journalists and bloggers. Kristof's letter may show that some journalists are careless about form and presentation, but we all know that some bloggers are as well. There are probably plenty of journalists who do care about presentation and it's not at all clear whether bloggers are better or worse on average than journalists.

Electronic media have changed perceptions of writing and communication in such a way that many people no longer feel that presentation is important. It's a not surprising consequence of the informal ease in which we can send email as opposed to a written letter (not to mention IM or text messaging). This change has affected a large portion of society, not just those with editors.

"My point is that with bloggers, what you see is what you get. With Nick Kristof, the only unfiltered, unedited output that I see isn't impressive. I've no idea how badly he needs an editor, because I've no visibility into that, other than this window into his writing through his email. People can like, or dislike either the content, style, grammar and spelling of my work, but at least they know that it's mine."

And how many bloggers write crappy e-mail and then do a better job with what they post to their blog?

You're not proving any kind of a point here. Both MSM journos and bloggers can write crappy e-mails and good final copy. This one example doesn't prove your claim.

Kristof's letter may show that some journalists are careless about form and presentation, but we all know that some bloggers are as well.

Not the ones to which I pay much attention, which is my point. One of my criteria for even getting my eyeballs in the first place is grammar, spelling, and clear writing. After it makes it past that gate, I consider content.

And how many bloggers write crappy e-mail and then do a better job with what they post to their blog?

How would I know? I only know that bloggers never have an editor, so if their email styles differ from their blogging style, it would quickly become obvious (unlike the case of professionals who can hide behind their editors). Apparently you continue to miss my point.

It's a not surprising consequence of the informal ease in which we can send email as opposed to a written letter (not to mention IM or text messaging). This change has affected a large portion of society, not just those with editors.

IM and text messaging are real-time media, so it's not reasonable to expect great grammar or spelling, since keystrokes and time at at a premium. But to me, someone who puts out a sloppy email is like someone going to the grocery in their bathrobe.

Rand, you should appreciate that specialization should get the grammatically challenged to team up with editors and produce viable if not excellent material.

I am waiting for clippie to learn to capitalize with a better than 1 in 3 hit rate. Until then, I could use an editor to improve my posts. I agree with you that bloggers who don't edit their own material well are marginalized.

Sam

"How would I know? I only know that bloggers never have an editor, so if their email styles differ from their blogging style, it would quickly become obvious (unlike the case of professionals who can hide behind their editors). Apparently you continue to miss my point."

What is that point? You assume that the only reason that this guy's e-mail style and his print style are different are because he has an editor to clean up his messes. It is equally likely that he is more careful with his copy than he is with e-mails. Do you honestly think that his editor went to journo school, clawed his way up the corporate ladder, and gets an ulcer so that he can put capitals at the beginnings of this guy's sentences? Editors do not concern themselves with that kind of piffle because they expect (and demand) more of their writers. They are equally likely to say "either you capitalize properly, or I will find myself some kid out of college who can!"

The MSM has a lot of problems, but this is a case where you're warping everything out of context simply because you hate the mainstream media. Simply put, LOTS of professionals are more sloppy with e-mail than with stuff that they have to formally submit to a publication/editor. So finding one example of an MSM journalist who is sloppy in e-mail proves no point at all.

You assume that the only reason that this guy's e-mail style and his print style are different are because he has an editor to clean up his messes.

No, I don't assume that. I'm simply saying that, unlike bloggers, I've no basis to know what the condition of the pieces that he turns into his editors are in, because there's an intermediary between his draft and the final product. The only evidence that he provides (via email) would support such an assumption, and not its opposite, whether I make it or not. In any event, it's journalists who are always going on about how superior their product is because it has editors. I'm simply reinforcing their point of view...

The MSM has a lot of problems, but this is a case where you're warping everything out of context simply because you hate the mainstream media. Simply put, LOTS of professionals are more sloppy with e-mail than with stuff that they have to formally submit to a publication/editor.

I don't "hate" the MSM. I just recognize much of it for the santimonious fraudulence that it is. And I can't recall ever being lectured by other professionals about how I'm somehow less worthy, because I don't have an editor.

So finding one example of an MSM journalist who is sloppy in e-mail proves no point at all.

I pointed out one example. I said that I've seen others (some, amusingly enough, from editors themselves, who shall remain nameless).

I can say that J. Chem. Phys. would not be pleased if I submitted something like that to their editing process. As scientists we're out here making darn near camera-ready output. All I'd need to do is be told left- or right-facing, and the starting page number for several journals.

The last paper I submitted had more outright errors on the Galley Proof introduced by the editors (lost subscript, d instead of lowercase delta, homonym switch) than they 'corrected'.

Of course, there are different forms of communication. A different level of literary license is permissible. But Rand would be less interesting if he posted in l33t, Klingon, or some other departure from the lingua franca of the day.

And, of course, I make an error in the placement of a period in relation to quote marks. Heh.

I think the one thing that one should keep in mind when writing is:

You write for your audience.

If its a peer review paper or technical thesis of some kind then it requires one type of format. If its a informal dialogue between somewhat private individuals then you are eligible to write in another format.

If anything if you were to ask a corporate email administrator *cough* me *cough* what they think is the best format to use for email correspondence they will probably tell you: plain text formatting, keep carriage returns to a minimum, No excessive spaces or tabs please, no html, no embedded pictures, no ole, etc. While little things like that seem minor all those bits and bytes of ASCII add up across thousands of accounts on millions of messages.

I take anywhere from 30-50 calls a day and have to log everything I talk about and am told over the phone. Sorry but often times formatting, spelling, and grammar correctness have to be sacrificed in the face of speed. Does it affect my review if my documentation is sloppy and hard to read? Oh, most definently, but at the same time my total calls for the day suffer if I spend inordinate amounts of time making sure I capitilized everything properly.

If anything grammar rules are much the same as reading tax laws in that they can contradict depending upon which book you read and which professor you talk to. In both causes everyone makes an error in sentence structure or ackwardness and everyone at some point has broken the law.

Vanity book publishers make a good living editing and publishing books. Do we want to limit the info space to those who are facile with English? Facile with html? There are some very interesting sentiments I want to hear from people who require a heavy edit to be readable.

Since I get many such e-mails each day i think I can say with some certanty that the e-mail was typed on a Blackberry, or like device. Caps are a rarity as is good spelling. You can only get so much done with two thumbs.