The period is the equivalent of a grammatical stop sign—it tells you to hit the visual brake as you read. In fact, in British usage it is referred to as a full stop.
When you see it at the end of a sentence, it clearly denotes The End, as in “And they lived happily ever after.”
It appears at the end of two types of sentences—declarative, or sentences that make statements, and imperative, or sentences that give orders or make requests, as in “Please read this blog article in its entirety.” You might also see a period at the end of a rhetorical question, as in “Why don’t you learn to use the period correctly.”
Do you wonder where the term “dot-com” comes from? It refers to the periods that separate portions of URLs and E-mail addresses, such as www.keenreader.com and first.last@keenreader.com, where they are referred to as “dots” due to their shape. In American English, periods also appear as decimal points in numbers, as in 98.6, and after many abbreviations, such as Mr., Mrs., Dr., Ms., Rep., Sen., Gov., and Pres., as well as in outlines or other lists of letters or numbers used as enumerations such as: “A.B.C.” and “1. 2. 3.”
When not to use a period: According to the Associated Press, an authoritative reference on the published English language, they don’t appear in well-known groups of initials, such as JFK, LBJ, FDR, US, UK, FBI, CIA, and other acronyms, while the Chicago Manual of Style, another authoritative reference, recommends leaving them out of display lines and running heads (chapter titles, subheads, and similar headings), column heads in tables, captions, datelines in correspondence, signatures, or addresses. Also, in British and Commonwealth English, periods generally don’t appear abbreviations, as in Mr, Mrs, Dr, and so on, and commas replace periods as decimal points.
“This is the start of a new paragraph. Notice how there is a space or two after the period in the preceding sentence.” When used in a quote or with brackets or parentheses, the closing quotation mark, bracket, or parenthesis should follow the period. Exception: If the enclosed text is a complete independent declarative or imperative sentence, as in “(The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.)”
Also, be sure to put a space after the period or closing quotation mark, bracket, or parenthesis. The space provides visual contrast, so readers can more easily follow the text and understand what you’re saying. For example: “The following text is poorly edited.This text is without a space between periods. There is no space in this quote after the closing quotation mark.”as opposed to “Inserting spaces between sentences is a sign of good editing. This text has a space after the closing quotation mark to make it easier to read.” Notice which text is easier on your eyes and mind?
Periods are also used in ellipses, which are omissions from the given text, such as “She said…and moved away,” and in suspensions or interruptions, such as “Keep reading…to the end of this sentence.” Periods used in ellipses, suspensions, or interruptions always appear together, on the same line, in groups of three at the beginning and before the end of a sentence or fragment, and in groups of four at the end of a sentence or fragment. Punctuation for a sentence or thought preceding an ellipsis, suspension, or interruption must appear before the ellipsis, as in “She ended the blog and prepared for a new one....”
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Chief Executive Blogger
CEOs are chosen based on a perceived ability to bring about future profitability and maximize shareholder returns for the corporations they lead. With the advent of blogs and social media, a new and important question arises for corporate leadership: Can the CEO candidate properly represent the corporation online?
A chief executive officer’s duties include acting as the official spokesperson and “face,” so to speak, of a corporation. Whether launching a product or service line, hiring a top officer, announcing earnings expectations and results, or any other move a corporation makes, the move is generally accompanied by a public statement from the CEO.
With the advent of blogs, online networks, and social media such as Twitter, and the great speed at which communications on these channels occurs, the ability to blog or tweet has taken on a new magnitude in corporate communications, especially in crises such as the braking and acceleration problems on Toyota’s SUVs or BP’s responsibility for the Gulf Coast oil spill. Yet only a handful of current CEOs blog or tweet at all, and even fewer do so on a regular basis.
George Colony, Chief Executive Officer of Forrester Research, predicts that within 15 years, CEOs will need to be well acquainted with the ins and outs of new media, social networking and associated communities as a requirement of the job. And they can’t leave the work to lower-level corporate personnel.
Colony suggests that CEOs should blog four to eight times and tweet 12 to 24 times annually, at a minimum. Marketers can provide what Colony calls “social Cliff Notes” and a “social light strategy” with a six-month test. In order to keep readers coming back, they should know that the blog will be updated infrequently rather than on a daily basis, and the CEO must have something of value to say to his or her audience that is thought-provoking and somewhat controversial. Colony also advises that CEOs have an editor double check the copy before it is posted online.
Given the need for CEOs to be on top of corporate communications with the world at large, it is curious that many don’t. Some feel that they just don’t have the time or still carry true concerns about the revelation of trade secrets and other confidential matters online. But there are two things that no CEO can afford to do regarding online communications: 1) ignore them entirely and 2) be dismissive about what readers of tweets and blogs have to say about the corporation. To do that can cause the corporation to lose touch with its target markets, garner bad publicity, and lose market share and profits to its competitors—a trifecta of adverse effects—all due to poor leadership.
So the verdict is in: CEOs who cannot—for whatever reason—communicate well for the corporation they lead will ultimately fail to do their jobs and shall remain responsible for the consequences. The most effective and respected CEOs are those who take the time to reach out to the communities of the world, both physical and online—and do it well.
A chief executive officer’s duties include acting as the official spokesperson and “face,” so to speak, of a corporation. Whether launching a product or service line, hiring a top officer, announcing earnings expectations and results, or any other move a corporation makes, the move is generally accompanied by a public statement from the CEO.
With the advent of blogs, online networks, and social media such as Twitter, and the great speed at which communications on these channels occurs, the ability to blog or tweet has taken on a new magnitude in corporate communications, especially in crises such as the braking and acceleration problems on Toyota’s SUVs or BP’s responsibility for the Gulf Coast oil spill. Yet only a handful of current CEOs blog or tweet at all, and even fewer do so on a regular basis.
George Colony, Chief Executive Officer of Forrester Research, predicts that within 15 years, CEOs will need to be well acquainted with the ins and outs of new media, social networking and associated communities as a requirement of the job. And they can’t leave the work to lower-level corporate personnel.
Colony suggests that CEOs should blog four to eight times and tweet 12 to 24 times annually, at a minimum. Marketers can provide what Colony calls “social Cliff Notes” and a “social light strategy” with a six-month test. In order to keep readers coming back, they should know that the blog will be updated infrequently rather than on a daily basis, and the CEO must have something of value to say to his or her audience that is thought-provoking and somewhat controversial. Colony also advises that CEOs have an editor double check the copy before it is posted online.
Given the need for CEOs to be on top of corporate communications with the world at large, it is curious that many don’t. Some feel that they just don’t have the time or still carry true concerns about the revelation of trade secrets and other confidential matters online. But there are two things that no CEO can afford to do regarding online communications: 1) ignore them entirely and 2) be dismissive about what readers of tweets and blogs have to say about the corporation. To do that can cause the corporation to lose touch with its target markets, garner bad publicity, and lose market share and profits to its competitors—a trifecta of adverse effects—all due to poor leadership.
So the verdict is in: CEOs who cannot—for whatever reason—communicate well for the corporation they lead will ultimately fail to do their jobs and shall remain responsible for the consequences. The most effective and respected CEOs are those who take the time to reach out to the communities of the world, both physical and online—and do it well.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Silence of the Blogs
The comment feature on blogs and websites is an important innovation in online publishing—mainly because it allows interactivity between the writer and the reader. But do bloggers and readers take it for granted? What if it didn’t exist?
The editors of Engadget, a popular technology website, silenced the comment feature on its blogs on Tuesday, February 2, stating, “over the past few days the tone in comments has really gotten out of hand. What is normally a charged—but fun—environment for our users and editors has become mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations... and that's just not acceptable.”
Flame wars and trolling on the Web are nothing new. And there are those who claim that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” whether to justify snark or simply to enlarge one’s presence on the Web. According to this perspective, there is no point in shutting down a comment system—even the flakiest or rudest comment still generates clicks, which in turn generates interest.
On the other hand, “sticks and stones” isn’t true. False, misleading, and/or defamatory stories placed online can and do hurt the reputations of the people they include and subjects they cover. And there is also the question of what value sarcasm and mean-spiritedness add to an online posting. Do they shed light on the subject matter, or are they simply invitations to join in the bullying?
If all blogs turned off their comment features, people would turn to Facebook, Twitter, and other online social media, as well as traditional channels of communication like newspaper editorials, to get across their points—and the average editorial page of a major newspaper is probably 75% snark generated by disappointed local readers.
Editors and moderators concern themselves, rightly, with the amount of snarky commentary generated by their articles, especially those generated by trolls who amuse themselves by looking to create controversy. If there is too much trolling and snark, these editors and moderators may take the action those behind Engadget did, and shut down commenting entirely. But in so doing, they may also be stifling the ability of readers to make positive or otherwise valuable commentary on their content—which is counterproductive to the whole point of having a blog!
Finding the right balance between interest and value is an editor’s paramount—and hardest —task. The most interesting content also needs the best eye-catching and interest-holding editorial treatment—while at the same time not allowing the publication to turn into a free-for-all. Otherwise, everyone will end up paying in pain for the hurtful words.
The editors of Engadget, a popular technology website, silenced the comment feature on its blogs on Tuesday, February 2, stating, “over the past few days the tone in comments has really gotten out of hand. What is normally a charged—but fun—environment for our users and editors has become mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations... and that's just not acceptable.”
Flame wars and trolling on the Web are nothing new. And there are those who claim that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” whether to justify snark or simply to enlarge one’s presence on the Web. According to this perspective, there is no point in shutting down a comment system—even the flakiest or rudest comment still generates clicks, which in turn generates interest.
On the other hand, “sticks and stones” isn’t true. False, misleading, and/or defamatory stories placed online can and do hurt the reputations of the people they include and subjects they cover. And there is also the question of what value sarcasm and mean-spiritedness add to an online posting. Do they shed light on the subject matter, or are they simply invitations to join in the bullying?
If all blogs turned off their comment features, people would turn to Facebook, Twitter, and other online social media, as well as traditional channels of communication like newspaper editorials, to get across their points—and the average editorial page of a major newspaper is probably 75% snark generated by disappointed local readers.
Editors and moderators concern themselves, rightly, with the amount of snarky commentary generated by their articles, especially those generated by trolls who amuse themselves by looking to create controversy. If there is too much trolling and snark, these editors and moderators may take the action those behind Engadget did, and shut down commenting entirely. But in so doing, they may also be stifling the ability of readers to make positive or otherwise valuable commentary on their content—which is counterproductive to the whole point of having a blog!
Finding the right balance between interest and value is an editor’s paramount—and hardest —task. The most interesting content also needs the best eye-catching and interest-holding editorial treatment—while at the same time not allowing the publication to turn into a free-for-all. Otherwise, everyone will end up paying in pain for the hurtful words.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Live...and In The Blog!
Due to the speed “to press,” bloggers hold an advantage by getting coverage of live events online, almost always ahead of other news reporters. But this advantage has led to some recent controversy regarding the effects this may have on the proceedings of the events themselves. Case in point—the ability to provide live trial coverage has recently become a matter of controversy in American courtrooms.
This still did not go over too well, as the following day, the Times-Union filed an emergency appeal with the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee, which quashed the restrictions on January 20, writing “The matter is remanded with directions to allow petitioner’s reporter the use of a laptop computer in the courtroom unless the court finds a specific factual basis to conclude that such use cannot be accommodated without undue distraction or disruption.”
“Tweeting” trial coverage has also been controversial. In November 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land barred tweeting by the Columbus, Georgia newspaper Columbus Ledger-Enquirer as a form of “broadcasting” during a drug-trafficking case. He did allow for a media room in the courthouse near the entrance where journalists “could use their electronic reporting devices near but outside of the courtroom.” On the other hand, U.S. District Court Judge J. Thomas Martin ruled that a reporter for the Wichita Eagle could tweet updates about a criminal trial in another high-profile case involving alleged gang members.
The arguments against allowing live trial coverage seem to be that the coverage unfairly biases the public and that the use of electronic devices to provide live updates is distracting to the court personnel. But there is no consensus as to whether or not one can cover a trial by electronic means. It seems to come down to the individual views of the judge.
On January 14, the judge in a Florida capital murder trial banned several individuals - including a Florida Times-Union reporter using a laptop in the courtroom - from blogging about the trial specifically “for purposes of communicating with the outside world” on the grounds that the electronic media was causing a distraction. Some camera use was banned as well. The blog had drawn more than 1,300 readers before it was shut down. The following day, the judge modified the order to authorize the use of alternation of still photos and live blogging.
This still did not go over too well, as the following day, the Times-Union filed an emergency appeal with the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee, which quashed the restrictions on January 20, writing “The matter is remanded with directions to allow petitioner’s reporter the use of a laptop computer in the courtroom unless the court finds a specific factual basis to conclude that such use cannot be accommodated without undue distraction or disruption.”
“Tweeting” trial coverage has also been controversial. In November 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land barred tweeting by the Columbus, Georgia newspaper Columbus Ledger-Enquirer as a form of “broadcasting” during a drug-trafficking case. He did allow for a media room in the courthouse near the entrance where journalists “could use their electronic reporting devices near but outside of the courtroom.” On the other hand, U.S. District Court Judge J. Thomas Martin ruled that a reporter for the Wichita Eagle could tweet updates about a criminal trial in another high-profile case involving alleged gang members.
The arguments against allowing live trial coverage seem to be that the coverage unfairly biases the public and that the use of electronic devices to provide live updates is distracting to the court personnel. But there is no consensus as to whether or not one can cover a trial by electronic means. It seems to come down to the individual views of the judge.
News organizations and their personnel, struggling to survive in the current economic and technological environments, are trying to meet their readers’ needs through speed and immediacy. There seems to be a growing trend toward permitting live coverage - provided it is done discreetly and accurately. Hopefully, the trend will continue, and the court system will come to embrace, rather than suppress, greater public access to its rulings. In the meantime, bloggers covering trials need to find out the presiding judge’s own rules on live updates before starting to blog - lest they get hit with prohibitions against blogging inside the courtroom.
Freedom of the Blog
A number of situations regarding the right to blog or comment freely have come up in the past few months. Some involve the terms of service of sponsoring companies, while others involve the courts and legal issues pertaining to blogging.
What is clear is that there is an emerging ethical and legal framework to blogging. Bloggers who engage in vulgarity, violate terms of service, leak confidential data, or publish defamatory or infringing information online do so at their own risk and forfeit their “right to privacy.” But so do those who complain about blogs.
Last November, Kurt Greenbaum, an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, outed someone who had left what he considered a vulgar comment on the Post-Dispatch’s blog at STLtoday.com - in spite of the newspaper’s stated policy that it “will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information. In some cases, however, [it] may provide information to legal officials.” The outed commenter subsequently resigned from his job following an investigation. Greenbaum then wrote about the situation in a blog post titled “Post a vulgar comment while you’re at work, lose your job.”
In December, Condé Nast, publisher of GQ, Vogue, Teen Vogue, and Lucky magazines, filed a copyright infringement and violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse suit against the blog FashionZag and unknown users of that blog for hacking into its computer system and publishing material belonging to Condé Nast on both it and on bayimg.com, an image-hosting site. Condé Nast was permitted to subpoena Google and AT&T, respectively, as hosts of the FashionZag blog and the IP address of the alleged hacker, to discover the identities of the bloggers and alleged hackers involved.
But although the federal Communications Decency Act provides that website owners are exempt from legal liability for defamatory material uploaded to their sites by users, it does not require that the owners remove the material. Many site owners will do this voluntarily, especially if the material violates their terms of service policies, but not always.
Martin Singer, the attorney for actress Demi Moore, wrote a letter to photographer Anthony Citrano demanding that he retract all blog and Twitter posts in which he claimed that a cover photo of Moore on W magazine’s December issue was altered in a non-flattering way.
In a recent lawsuit, although U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman (northern district of Illinois) had previously ruled that while authors had posted material appearing on Ripoff Report, a consumer advocacy website, that was deemed defamatory to the plaintiffs, the authors never removed the material from the site. The plaintiffs wrote to Ripoff Report, asking it to remove the material. Holderman wrote that he agreed with Ripoff Report’s argument that Ripoff Report itself can’t be required to remove the material as it was not a party to the case. The plaintiffs were left with no true recourse for the alleged damage to their reputations.
The aforementioned actions clearly indicate that blogging comes with journalistic responsibility to respect privacy and intellectual property rights and not to make defamatory statements. But to complain about a blog post may actually result in more people seeing the material that one wants removed – the ironic and opposite effect of the complainer’s intent. Controversy drives blog views. So go ahead and blog and complain – but do so at your own risk.
What is clear is that there is an emerging ethical and legal framework to blogging. Bloggers who engage in vulgarity, violate terms of service, leak confidential data, or publish defamatory or infringing information online do so at their own risk and forfeit their “right to privacy.” But so do those who complain about blogs.
Last November, Kurt Greenbaum, an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, outed someone who had left what he considered a vulgar comment on the Post-Dispatch’s blog at STLtoday.com - in spite of the newspaper’s stated policy that it “will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information. In some cases, however, [it] may provide information to legal officials.” The outed commenter subsequently resigned from his job following an investigation. Greenbaum then wrote about the situation in a blog post titled “Post a vulgar comment while you’re at work, lose your job.”
In December, Condé Nast, publisher of GQ, Vogue, Teen Vogue, and Lucky magazines, filed a copyright infringement and violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse suit against the blog FashionZag and unknown users of that blog for hacking into its computer system and publishing material belonging to Condé Nast on both it and on bayimg.com, an image-hosting site. Condé Nast was permitted to subpoena Google and AT&T, respectively, as hosts of the FashionZag blog and the IP address of the alleged hacker, to discover the identities of the bloggers and alleged hackers involved.
But although the federal Communications Decency Act provides that website owners are exempt from legal liability for defamatory material uploaded to their sites by users, it does not require that the owners remove the material. Many site owners will do this voluntarily, especially if the material violates their terms of service policies, but not always.
Martin Singer, the attorney for actress Demi Moore, wrote a letter to photographer Anthony Citrano demanding that he retract all blog and Twitter posts in which he claimed that a cover photo of Moore on W magazine’s December issue was altered in a non-flattering way.
In a recent lawsuit, although U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman (northern district of Illinois) had previously ruled that while authors had posted material appearing on Ripoff Report, a consumer advocacy website, that was deemed defamatory to the plaintiffs, the authors never removed the material from the site. The plaintiffs wrote to Ripoff Report, asking it to remove the material. Holderman wrote that he agreed with Ripoff Report’s argument that Ripoff Report itself can’t be required to remove the material as it was not a party to the case. The plaintiffs were left with no true recourse for the alleged damage to their reputations.
The aforementioned actions clearly indicate that blogging comes with journalistic responsibility to respect privacy and intellectual property rights and not to make defamatory statements. But to complain about a blog post may actually result in more people seeing the material that one wants removed – the ironic and opposite effect of the complainer’s intent. Controversy drives blog views. So go ahead and blog and complain – but do so at your own risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)