So to follow up on my little Wikipedia experiment, I checked the Stephen A. Smith page and I was pretty surprised.
To refresh your memory, a little over two months ago I went into Wikipedia and changed Stephen A. Smith's year of birth to 1968. And to end all of the suspense you must be feeling, nobody has changed it back to the correct date yet. That's pretty pathetic. I'm not saying that Stephen A. Smith's biographical Wikipedia Web site is heavily trafficked or anything, but I am just appalled at the whole idea that anyone can go in and change anything at a push of a button.
We went over in class how someone created a Wikipedia page changing the course of history... and people believed it! I just think it's funny and sad how dependent some people are on that Web site for information. I mean, it's a great starting point, but it's nothing to hang your journalist's hat on.
Along those same lines, it really makes me mad when people go online and think they can diagnose themselves with illnesses and injuries based off of what they read. But I guess they're right, there is no need for doctors, physical therapists and psychiatrists. I mean can you imagine someone having certain symptoms and going to Google to only be sent to some guy's personal site that is completely bogus? If you have every heard of the Darwin Awards, I think there is a possibility that someone can get one by incorrectly self-diagnosing based off of a Web site's errors.
B
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Talk the Talk
I think it's interesting how the editing process differs for reporters and columnists. I feel like editors look at a game preview and a weekly column with a different eye. When an editor looks at a reporter's game story, they are editing for the obvious spelling and grammar, but also they need to look at the structure and flow of the piece. They need to make sure the most pertinent information gets to the reader withou bias.
When it comes to editing for a column, they also need to look for the obvious punctuation and grammar, but with the columnist position comes a sort of trust that assumes the columnists know the writing process. Also, there's no worries about editorializing or showing bias, because that comes with the job. The editor looks for a type of flow, but the form of a column can be so diverse, it's really up to the editor to decide if the columnist needs to change.
I think it's important for writers to have a solid background of reporting before they jump into the columnist role. When I first started as a journalist, all I wanted to do was write a column full of my opinions, but looking back on it, it was really important for me to develop a foundation of reporting before I stepped up into a columnist role. Plus, personally, I love the reporting process. It is truly a one of a kind process. It takes you out of your comfort zone and it allows you to meet a lot of people you would not even think about saying anything to.
So an editor really has to adapt the editing process to the different writers at their newspaper. They need to know when to really take apart articles, and when to leave them in tact for the sake of creativity. It's not an easy thing to do, but it comes with job.
B
When it comes to editing for a column, they also need to look for the obvious punctuation and grammar, but with the columnist position comes a sort of trust that assumes the columnists know the writing process. Also, there's no worries about editorializing or showing bias, because that comes with the job. The editor looks for a type of flow, but the form of a column can be so diverse, it's really up to the editor to decide if the columnist needs to change.
I think it's important for writers to have a solid background of reporting before they jump into the columnist role. When I first started as a journalist, all I wanted to do was write a column full of my opinions, but looking back on it, it was really important for me to develop a foundation of reporting before I stepped up into a columnist role. Plus, personally, I love the reporting process. It is truly a one of a kind process. It takes you out of your comfort zone and it allows you to meet a lot of people you would not even think about saying anything to.
So an editor really has to adapt the editing process to the different writers at their newspaper. They need to know when to really take apart articles, and when to leave them in tact for the sake of creativity. It's not an easy thing to do, but it comes with job.
B
Monday, April 20, 2009
WIn That Race
I think the idea of speed versus accuracy at a newspaper shouldn't be taken lightly. With all the cutting of editors and shrinking of newspapers, there is only one answer that I can come up with to help cut down on errors. Reporters and columnists will simply have to read over other people's stories as part of their job. It's a two way street; I will feel more comfortable with my story after my coworker reads over it and he will feel the same after I read his. Obviously there will still be copy editors, but this ensures another set of eyes are guaranteed to look over my entire piece.
Some might say it's not a reporter's job to edit for other people. This is simply ridiculous. The more you read, the more you learn. If as part of your job you have to read a few more articles everyday, you will not only become a more well-rounded journalist because your reading another beat, but you'll get to see other people's errors, which hopefully prevent you from making those same errors.
It's plain and simple, I don't want to see more and more errors in the newspaper and online. This means if news businesses want to cut more and more editors, they have to distribute the responsibilities accordingly. Reporters are going to have to step up whether they think it's fair or not. Until the news business finds some answers to prevent downsizing, it's going to be a necessity.
B
Some might say it's not a reporter's job to edit for other people. This is simply ridiculous. The more you read, the more you learn. If as part of your job you have to read a few more articles everyday, you will not only become a more well-rounded journalist because your reading another beat, but you'll get to see other people's errors, which hopefully prevent you from making those same errors.
It's plain and simple, I don't want to see more and more errors in the newspaper and online. This means if news businesses want to cut more and more editors, they have to distribute the responsibilities accordingly. Reporters are going to have to step up whether they think it's fair or not. Until the news business finds some answers to prevent downsizing, it's going to be a necessity.
B
Sunday, April 5, 2009
(insert creative title here)
So, I like jokes. And nothing is better than some good old fashion word play. And since most copy editors are overworked and under-appreciated, they sometimes come up with some pretty hysterical titles for stories. I'm guessing most of these were not on purpose.
"Caskets found as workers demolish mausoleum"
That's fantastic. I feel like this person wrote 20 headlines that evening and didn't even look back to see how obviously ridiculous this headline is. It would be a headline if they didn't find caskets. Then it would be a story from Law and Order.
"Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25"
If you want to talk about problems with numbers, you have a big one right here. Of course it drops off significantly at that point! If it's higher than zero then a journalist certainly calculated the statistic. I am sorry to the journalists out there who are wonderful mathematicians. On a side note, I actually like basic math. I just absolutely hated math when I got to calculus my senior year in high school.
"One-armed man applauds the kindness of strangers"
I just have to believe this copy editor was trying to be funny ... and he failed big time. At least I hope this was on purpose because if not, then I don't want to meet the people in this newsroom. This actually reminds me a little of Obama's special Olympic joke that wasn't funny at all.
These headlines came from:
http://www.oddee.com/item_96156.aspx
B
"Caskets found as workers demolish mausoleum"
That's fantastic. I feel like this person wrote 20 headlines that evening and didn't even look back to see how obviously ridiculous this headline is. It would be a headline if they didn't find caskets. Then it would be a story from Law and Order.
"Statistics show that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25"
If you want to talk about problems with numbers, you have a big one right here. Of course it drops off significantly at that point! If it's higher than zero then a journalist certainly calculated the statistic. I am sorry to the journalists out there who are wonderful mathematicians. On a side note, I actually like basic math. I just absolutely hated math when I got to calculus my senior year in high school.
"One-armed man applauds the kindness of strangers"
I just have to believe this copy editor was trying to be funny ... and he failed big time. At least I hope this was on purpose because if not, then I don't want to meet the people in this newsroom. This actually reminds me a little of Obama's special Olympic joke that wasn't funny at all.
These headlines came from:
http://www.oddee.com/item_96156.aspx
B
Monday, March 30, 2009
My Words Are A Wonderland
When sports writers cover a beat for a while, they become experts on a team. To me, this means they should have a little wiggle room on what they can say in stories. Maybe they can throw in a little something into the article that makes the reader laugh, or maybe they can say something that they observed, that the coach or players didn't say.
What bothers me is the inconstancy in the editing practices among publications. When you pick up the Chicago tribune, the sports staff writers basically have their way in the writing process. The language used by K.C. Johnson would be considered editorializing by some, and witty, concise writing by others. But if you look at other publications, you find the standard lede, quote, paraphrase and repeat style.
Now I know columnists have this freedom because they are supposedly allowed to be biased toward whatever they like. When I speak about staff writers, I'm not talking about bias. I just mean that they all need the freedom to be creative and write what they see. They need to remain fair, but they can't be held back by an editorial choke-collar.
This will only take place when the there is a trust between the writer and editor. Obviously this takes time. But eventually the editor should lengthen the staff writer's lease slowly but surely until, and if, the staff writer proves they need to be reeled in.
Be free staff writers...
B
What bothers me is the inconstancy in the editing practices among publications. When you pick up the Chicago tribune, the sports staff writers basically have their way in the writing process. The language used by K.C. Johnson would be considered editorializing by some, and witty, concise writing by others. But if you look at other publications, you find the standard lede, quote, paraphrase and repeat style.
Now I know columnists have this freedom because they are supposedly allowed to be biased toward whatever they like. When I speak about staff writers, I'm not talking about bias. I just mean that they all need the freedom to be creative and write what they see. They need to remain fair, but they can't be held back by an editorial choke-collar.
This will only take place when the there is a trust between the writer and editor. Obviously this takes time. But eventually the editor should lengthen the staff writer's lease slowly but surely until, and if, the staff writer proves they need to be reeled in.
Be free staff writers...
B
Sunday, March 15, 2009
We're Talkin' About Practice
I'm calling out copy editors right now. Or better yet, I'm calling out people in charge of newspapers. I'm sick of the botched headlines, jumps and stats that I find in the sports section. Plain and simple, if you're a copy editor and you don't know a thing about sports, don't change something unless you ask.
And as for headlines, I think the reporters and columnists should write them. Is it really that hard for someone who already knows the article inside and out to throw down a headline? I'm not saying it's easy to write a headline, but the author of the article should be able to at least put something together that is free of sports-related errors.
People outside of the sports realm may think it isn't that big of a deal, but I'm here to tell you that it is. When I sit down and painstakingly search for statistics to go along with my story, I expect them to be checked, not decimated. When I write something that I am truly proud of, it's heartbreaking to wake up in the morning and see vomit printed in bold above my article.
This is why I am proposing that newspapers figure out a way to employ at least one copy editor that has some sports knowledge. I mean we're not talking about a lot of sports knowledge here ... just a little bit. They need to know the bullet points of sports, or at least have the patients to jump on a computer and look something up. If you don't have a sports background, please don't trust your sports instincts. That's just silly.
I understand that copy editors may feel like they don't get the appreciation they deserve. I will be the first to say they are absolutely necessary. Trust me, after taking my news editing class, I've realized they are a big part of the machine that is journalism. Without them, people would laugh at some articles they see in the newspaper each morning. But all I'm saying is that they need to step their game up and understand how bad it makes sports writers feel when they see glaring errors in their stories that weren't there to begin with.
Studying here at U of I, we are asked to get a broad education in news-editorial journalism because we are supposed to know a little about everything. But when your working at a newspaper, you can't forget this. Yes, it's important to know which piece of legislation is being passed by what court on what day. But how about who won the NCAA Tournament? I would argue that there are just as many people waking up to look at ESPN.com as there are checking their YAHOO NEWS.
I mean, honestly, I hope I didn't make any mistakes in this blog because I didn't have a copy editor look over it ... for real.
B
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Kid Rock feat. Sheryl Crow
I'm going to be totally honest and tell you that in my personal life and my life as a journalist, I have never really analyzed what pictures I think should and should not go into newspapers. So a lot of what I am going to say is coming from my gut.
As for the first set of pictures we analyzed in class that go in order to portray a man committing suicide, I have mixed feelings. Before we came to class today and learned that there was video of the suicide plastered all over the news, I would have said do not print those pictures. I just don't think a Joe Shmo who picks up the paper in the morning will better understand the situation by seeing a set of pictures. I think elaborate, but concise writing can do it justice.
But after class, I started thinking that to stay competitive, a newspaper should probably use one of the photos, because now that Joe Shmo has seen the story on the news, he probably expects to see an illistration of it the next morning.
As for the photo with the dog, I have absolutly no problem puting that in my paper. I love dogs in general and I love my dog, but if there's a good story behind it, it's in my paper. I think it was tasteful, and it had nothing that rubbed me the wrong way.
Now the picture with the dead child on the other hand definetly rubbed me the wrong way. There are very few circumstances, if any, that I would want a dead child's face in my newspaper. I think it's disrespectful, and really, the reader doesn't gain anything from seeing the face of the deceased. It's really none of our business. Leave their family alone unless they specifically grant permission for the photo to run. I don't want paparazzi pictures in my paper.
My opinion of the dead person in the news building is the exact same. Plain and simple, I don't want a dead face in my paper. How about just taking a picture of the scene with bullet holes and perhaps blood. No faces, no disrespect.
Now the kid with the bar through his face, to me, is something out of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Unless they are planning on running some public announcement about parents watching their children more carefully, or how you shouldn't jump metal fences with spikes on them, I just see no newsworthyness. And yes I just used that word. I feel like that is a picture you would find on a website of rediculous pictures. It should be the joke at the end of a safety video or something, not in my newspaper.
Now the picture that I thought the most about is the one with the women being groped in Seattle. My first reaction to that photo was horrer and anger at those idiots surrounding her. So that part of me wanted the picture on the front of every paper with her face blurred out and every one of those guy's faces kept in. That way the whole world can see how much of a low-life each of those people are. I wouldn't even mind if they got denied from a job or scholarship because of it. In fact, I would welcome it.
But then there's the rational side of me that says, you can't post that picture because it is a sexual assault. It's not fair to the woman because they couldn't reach her to ask permission, and it's also not fair to other women who have been assaulted that might pick up the paper.
But it still pisses me off that those guys don't get the embarrassment and shame of seeing their faces on every paper across America. But I guess I'll settle for their jail time.
B
As for the first set of pictures we analyzed in class that go in order to portray a man committing suicide, I have mixed feelings. Before we came to class today and learned that there was video of the suicide plastered all over the news, I would have said do not print those pictures. I just don't think a Joe Shmo who picks up the paper in the morning will better understand the situation by seeing a set of pictures. I think elaborate, but concise writing can do it justice.
But after class, I started thinking that to stay competitive, a newspaper should probably use one of the photos, because now that Joe Shmo has seen the story on the news, he probably expects to see an illistration of it the next morning.
As for the photo with the dog, I have absolutly no problem puting that in my paper. I love dogs in general and I love my dog, but if there's a good story behind it, it's in my paper. I think it was tasteful, and it had nothing that rubbed me the wrong way.
Now the picture with the dead child on the other hand definetly rubbed me the wrong way. There are very few circumstances, if any, that I would want a dead child's face in my newspaper. I think it's disrespectful, and really, the reader doesn't gain anything from seeing the face of the deceased. It's really none of our business. Leave their family alone unless they specifically grant permission for the photo to run. I don't want paparazzi pictures in my paper.
My opinion of the dead person in the news building is the exact same. Plain and simple, I don't want a dead face in my paper. How about just taking a picture of the scene with bullet holes and perhaps blood. No faces, no disrespect.
Now the kid with the bar through his face, to me, is something out of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Unless they are planning on running some public announcement about parents watching their children more carefully, or how you shouldn't jump metal fences with spikes on them, I just see no newsworthyness. And yes I just used that word. I feel like that is a picture you would find on a website of rediculous pictures. It should be the joke at the end of a safety video or something, not in my newspaper.
Now the picture that I thought the most about is the one with the women being groped in Seattle. My first reaction to that photo was horrer and anger at those idiots surrounding her. So that part of me wanted the picture on the front of every paper with her face blurred out and every one of those guy's faces kept in. That way the whole world can see how much of a low-life each of those people are. I wouldn't even mind if they got denied from a job or scholarship because of it. In fact, I would welcome it.
But then there's the rational side of me that says, you can't post that picture because it is a sexual assault. It's not fair to the woman because they couldn't reach her to ask permission, and it's also not fair to other women who have been assaulted that might pick up the paper.
But it still pisses me off that those guys don't get the embarrassment and shame of seeing their faces on every paper across America. But I guess I'll settle for their jail time.
B
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Starbucks Inside of a Starbucks
As I was brainstorming about the ridiculous ways I could stretch the topic of "news editing", I thought about Wikipedia and it's loose editing process. As an experiment I went in and edited the page about Stephen A. Smith to say he was born in 1968 instead of 1967. I am curious how long it will take for this to be changed back to the correct version. Of course I am not going to check it with hourly regularity so the experiment will be analyzed once a day.
I feel like Wikipedia is a copy editor's worst nightmare. The site is edited for content and punctuation by anyone who feels like signing up and editing. All I had to do was give them an email address that I hardly use and chose a user name. If you care to look me up I go under the pseudonym "MrEdits". It was MrEdits' opinion that Stephen A. Smith was born in 1968 and he has a website that proves it.
This is the even more ridiculous part about Wikipedia. Most of the time you don't really have to prove where you got your information. I would only have to cite my sources if I wanted to make a major edit to the content. But apparently a man's date of birth isn't too major.
I would be a liar if I said I haven't used Wikipedia to look up important information. I'm just saying that before you look up an illness or information for your research paper due in the morning, I would be wary about what you read on a self-editing Web site. There's a reason why things get edited by professionals and why there's the process of attribution. Those people are trained and actually know what they're talking about.
But hey, if you want to become a professional Wikipedia editor like me, just check out the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia page editing... it even has its own manual of style.
B
I feel like Wikipedia is a copy editor's worst nightmare. The site is edited for content and punctuation by anyone who feels like signing up and editing. All I had to do was give them an email address that I hardly use and chose a user name. If you care to look me up I go under the pseudonym "MrEdits". It was MrEdits' opinion that Stephen A. Smith was born in 1968 and he has a website that proves it.
This is the even more ridiculous part about Wikipedia. Most of the time you don't really have to prove where you got your information. I would only have to cite my sources if I wanted to make a major edit to the content. But apparently a man's date of birth isn't too major.
I would be a liar if I said I haven't used Wikipedia to look up important information. I'm just saying that before you look up an illness or information for your research paper due in the morning, I would be wary about what you read on a self-editing Web site. There's a reason why things get edited by professionals and why there's the process of attribution. Those people are trained and actually know what they're talking about.
But hey, if you want to become a professional Wikipedia editor like me, just check out the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia page editing... it even has its own manual of style.
B
Monday, February 16, 2009
All For The Team
In my time as a sports writer covering basketball and tennis I have heard a lot of athletes talk. It also doesn't hurt that ESPN is on the TV in my living room for most of the day because my roommate and I are crazy. And what really deflates my internal basketball is when athletes give the mind-numbing, "I did it for the team" response and the reporter doesn't prod any further.
Yes, I understand sports and I have played them my entire life so I get it that most of them are based on the output of the team as a unit. But I feel like athletes hide behind the language that they are programed to use. Tell me what you really think AMARE STOUDEMIRE. Yes I know your team is not producing and your coach was fired, but what's actually going on behind the scenes??
And I think the biggest part of this rests on the shoulders of the reporter to get through the programmed athlete language and get at the really good quote hidden underneath it. Reporters can't settle for the programmed response. It's embarrassing. If an athlete credits an individual reward to his or her teammates, you better ask them specifically why or how that's possible. I'm sick of the "goober" quotes I see in print and hear on TV or radio.
However before I sound like the quote police, I will insert one caveat to my rant and rave. There is always the exception. I understand that there are times when a reporter cannot get to an event due to extenuating circumstances. I'll be honest, as a student without a car, there isn't much I can do about getting to Penn State to be part of a press conference. And thus I am thrown on the mercy of my sport information director who gives me the quotes he wants me to have.
But yes I want to call out the average sports reporter and tell them to get through the muck and get at the truth. Don't let an athlete off the hook when an issue comes up. It's easy to take down the first thing an athlete says as your "money" quote, but it's a total other thing to get them to be real with you. Put your reporting hat on and get to it. Don't give those general news people any ounce of fuel to think they are better than us ... because that's just silly.
B
Yes, I understand sports and I have played them my entire life so I get it that most of them are based on the output of the team as a unit. But I feel like athletes hide behind the language that they are programed to use. Tell me what you really think AMARE STOUDEMIRE. Yes I know your team is not producing and your coach was fired, but what's actually going on behind the scenes??
And I think the biggest part of this rests on the shoulders of the reporter to get through the programmed athlete language and get at the really good quote hidden underneath it. Reporters can't settle for the programmed response. It's embarrassing. If an athlete credits an individual reward to his or her teammates, you better ask them specifically why or how that's possible. I'm sick of the "goober" quotes I see in print and hear on TV or radio.
However before I sound like the quote police, I will insert one caveat to my rant and rave. There is always the exception. I understand that there are times when a reporter cannot get to an event due to extenuating circumstances. I'll be honest, as a student without a car, there isn't much I can do about getting to Penn State to be part of a press conference. And thus I am thrown on the mercy of my sport information director who gives me the quotes he wants me to have.
But yes I want to call out the average sports reporter and tell them to get through the muck and get at the truth. Don't let an athlete off the hook when an issue comes up. It's easy to take down the first thing an athlete says as your "money" quote, but it's a total other thing to get them to be real with you. Put your reporting hat on and get to it. Don't give those general news people any ounce of fuel to think they are better than us ... because that's just silly.
B
Monday, February 9, 2009
Grammarphobia Gave Me Blogphobia
Right off the bat, I have to say that the Grammarphobia blog has one of the ugliest color schemes I have ever seen. There's nothing like getting blasted by pumpkin-orange and McDonald's yellow. Plus, inside the yellow portions of the background there are phrases without punctuation that could break a copy editor's heart.
But in all seriousness, I thought the content of the blog was very solid. I think it's a great idea to use the question and answer format to teach people about grammar. Also with all the links on the side, you can access lots of information about grammar use and abuse.
Although I did find it a little nauseating that they were pushing their books at every opportunity they could. But hey, where would a blog be without pushing an agenda. Check out my brother Ben on Fox's Hell's Kitchen every Thursday at 8. And yes, that is actually my brother.
But in all seriousness, I thought the content of the blog was very solid. I think it's a great idea to use the question and answer format to teach people about grammar. Also with all the links on the side, you can access lots of information about grammar use and abuse.
Although I did find it a little nauseating that they were pushing their books at every opportunity they could. But hey, where would a blog be without pushing an agenda. Check out my brother Ben on Fox's Hell's Kitchen every Thursday at 8. And yes, that is actually my brother.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Not Just a Name
When I was thinking about errors in print, the word that came up most in my head was actually my own first name. More people in my life have misspelled my first name than you could ever imagine. My first name is Bret. Ya that's right, it's with one "t" .
My parents decided before I was born that they would configure my name in such a way that I would have to awkwardly correct over a million people in my lifetime. Maybe it was a ploy to make me more outgoing. If I can tell someone I just met that they spelled my name wrong, then I can say anything ... I guess.
But in reality when I asked my dad why they decided to don me with such a spelling, he told me it was because he is Gary with one "r" and my grandpa was Philip with one "l". Honestly I think Bret with one "t" is much rarer than the other two. In fact, I typed in the name "Bret" into Google and found only three famous people with that spelling that I will be linked to for eternity.
First is Bret Michaels. Honestly, I don't like his music or his sellout personality that sparked such reality shows as "Rock of Love with Bret Michaels", its sequel and then now, "Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels". But I still have to give him respect for his first name ... but that's about it.
The next is Bret "the Hitman" Hart. He was a famous professional wrestler for years in the United States and Canada. He started off in olympic-style wrestling until he got an offer from the WWF. Unfortunetly for him, he received a career-ending head injury in one of his matches. But that didn't stop him from writing an autobiography. So there is a Bret with a legitamate writing career.
The last famous Bret that has had to deal with mispelling is Bret McKenzie. He has an HBO show called "Flight of the Concords", that I hear is very funny. He is from New Zealand originally, and was in one of the Lord of the Rings movies - which doesn't do much for me. But what I like about him is that he has made it in the realm of comedy.
So like these three celebrities, I have had my name spelled incorrectly in every way imaginable. I have had gift certificates, name tags, awards, rosters, assignments, emails and even professional documents with the wrong name printed on them. I still have family members that think my name has two t's. But you know what, it's OK. Not everyone has a copy editor by their side 24/7. I have come to somewhat accept my name either way. However, when I do see it spelled the wrong way, I'm not going to lie, I cringe a little. And honestly, I will still probably tell someone I've just met that they spelled it incorrectly.
B
My parents decided before I was born that they would configure my name in such a way that I would have to awkwardly correct over a million people in my lifetime. Maybe it was a ploy to make me more outgoing. If I can tell someone I just met that they spelled my name wrong, then I can say anything ... I guess.
But in reality when I asked my dad why they decided to don me with such a spelling, he told me it was because he is Gary with one "r" and my grandpa was Philip with one "l". Honestly I think Bret with one "t" is much rarer than the other two. In fact, I typed in the name "Bret" into Google and found only three famous people with that spelling that I will be linked to for eternity.
First is Bret Michaels. Honestly, I don't like his music or his sellout personality that sparked such reality shows as "Rock of Love with Bret Michaels", its sequel and then now, "Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels". But I still have to give him respect for his first name ... but that's about it.
The next is Bret "the Hitman" Hart. He was a famous professional wrestler for years in the United States and Canada. He started off in olympic-style wrestling until he got an offer from the WWF. Unfortunetly for him, he received a career-ending head injury in one of his matches. But that didn't stop him from writing an autobiography. So there is a Bret with a legitamate writing career.
The last famous Bret that has had to deal with mispelling is Bret McKenzie. He has an HBO show called "Flight of the Concords", that I hear is very funny. He is from New Zealand originally, and was in one of the Lord of the Rings movies - which doesn't do much for me. But what I like about him is that he has made it in the realm of comedy.
So like these three celebrities, I have had my name spelled incorrectly in every way imaginable. I have had gift certificates, name tags, awards, rosters, assignments, emails and even professional documents with the wrong name printed on them. I still have family members that think my name has two t's. But you know what, it's OK. Not everyone has a copy editor by their side 24/7. I have come to somewhat accept my name either way. However, when I do see it spelled the wrong way, I'm not going to lie, I cringe a little. And honestly, I will still probably tell someone I've just met that they spelled it incorrectly.
B
Monday, January 26, 2009
Welcome
As I sit here watching King of Queens, I think to myself, "there must be something better to do with my time". First I think I should explain why the name of my blog is Stephen A. Greenberg when my first name clearly isn't Stephen and my middle name is definitely Philip and not "A.". Simply, I like journalists with ridiculously passionate views and Stephen A. Smith is that journalist. Even though I feel like he might be selling out on his passionate arguments, I still like him most of the time.
Thus, Stephen A. Greenberg is born. The blogging I have done in the past was held back some because I wasn't supposed to infuse as much opinion. But this won't be the case hopefully. Plus since it's in this format, there's the illusion that there are less repercussions. Just kidding. But seriously.
B
Thus, Stephen A. Greenberg is born. The blogging I have done in the past was held back some because I wasn't supposed to infuse as much opinion. But this won't be the case hopefully. Plus since it's in this format, there's the illusion that there are less repercussions. Just kidding. But seriously.
B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)