Bloggers: Big difference between "shameless self-promotion" and legitimate plug for Michelle Wie book
Allow me to point out the difference between shameless self-promotion and circumspect, dignified marketing. Barry and Stacy Solomon, in their blog for TravelGolf, crow about their “recognition” by The Journal News. The Solomons never informed their readers, but The Journal News is a Gannett Company newspaper in White Plains, N.Y. with a circulation of around 140,000, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Using a lame qualifier at the beginning – telling us upfront that what follows is “shameless self promotion” – does not soften the fact that what follows is indeed shameless self promotion, ending with “Stay tuned as Golf for Beginners takes the world by storm.”
Contrast that with Jennifer Mario’s blog. Mario starts off her blog by writing about Michelle Wie’s upcoming date with possible destiny by trying to make the cut at the John Deere Classic. Only at the end, almost as an aside, does she mention her appearance on ESPNews to discuss her newly released book on Wie.
“Check it out if you’re so inclined,” Mario writes.
Those of you familiar with Mario’s blog on TG – and probably many more besides – will surely be so inclined, both to watch the show and read the book.
|« Bob Charles at the U.S. Senior Open: play golf til you die||Allen Doyle was right: USGA pulling for Tom Watson to win U.S. Senior Open »|
No, allow me to point out the similarity between "shameless self-promotion and self-promotion. "Circumspect, dignified marketing"? Yeah, right.
And with this article, it is now "Shameless promotion by a 'What's in it for me?' cohort".
I hope you're getting lunch, or getting SOMETHING for your circumspect, dignified marketing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it could just be "circumspect, dignified marketing".
Perhaps next time Tim might be able to come up with a more unique blog.
Rsorting to childish put-downs is truly a Tim McDonald specialty.
"Unique" means one of a kind. Therefore, one thing cannot be "more" or "less" unique than another.
Something is either unique -- one of a kind -- or it isn't.
This is the only critique you could come up with?
Wow, it appears you have a learned grasp of the English language. But just for grins, let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about Stacy's apparent faux pas:
1 : being the only one : SOLE, his unique concern was his own comfort, I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? -- Kingsley Amis the unique factorization of a number into prime factors
2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique -- Robert Coover b : distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR 1 this is not a condition unique to California -- Ronald Reagan
3 : UNUSUAL a very unique ball-point pen we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch -- J. D. Salinger
Usage: Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary, characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the 19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into considerable popular use. With popular use came a broadening of application beyond the original two meanings (here numbered 1 and 2a). In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense 1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying modifiers.
Well, now we have the rest of the story. Apparently, your definition would be correct and in vogue....if this were before the Civil War!
This is another example of you not researching what you print. Kind of like your statement in another one of your "researched pieces". "Only Nike and certain sponsors still love her unequivocally." What kind of a boneheaded assertion is that?
Your credibility as a journalist, like that of your peer Chris Baldwin, is fast becoming a big joke. If your ambition is to continue writing for The Daily Blog Archives until retirement age, then you are on the right path, because apparently your editor is not doing his/her job or simply doesn't care about poorly researched journalism.
I would think most would aspire to be a respected and credible, not CRUDABLE journalist.
If that were true, "bonehead" would be used in the highest literary circles. As would the word "ain't." Journalists should pay attention to the precise meanings of words. I realize this doesn't apply to you amateurs.
Also, to be precise, I don't write for the Daily Blog Archives. Something doesn't become archived until it is, by definition, in the past. How is it possible to write for something that's already in the past tense? Go ahead, look up "archive" in your dictionary. Just do me a favor and don't take up so much space cutting and pasting it word for word here.
By the way, here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about "crudable:"
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."
If you're going to use a pun or whatever crude word-play you were trying, make sure it's funny and/or effective.
And for the record, idiot, blogs aren't edited, nor are the responses. If they were, yours would be seriously axed.
And Barry and Stacy kick ass. I'd have to say Mr. McDonald (that's what he makes us call him, by the way) is just irked that the Solomons didn't have to spend several years paying their dues at the Anchorage Daily Press.
Or The Northern Light, Skagway News, Adelanto Bulletin and Victorville Daily Press, like yours truly.
Also, I'll be featured in "Big Hair Dudes Monthly" in September. Don't miss it!!
Tim McDonald's new motto: "I would kick J.D. Salinger's grammatically incorrect ass if anybody knew where I could find him".
You write: "..simply because a word or phrase is widespread does not make its usage acceptable or preferable, particularly for someone who purports to be a writer."
Yet there is Salinger, mocking you with his sloppy usage. Maybe, just maybe, Salinger is using the word "unique" in the manner you deem incorrect because he is a writer, not in spite of it. He recognizes that words are there to be used by writers, not the other way around. It's a device, silly, like Joyce's splendid use of the narrator/character voice in the opening sentence of Dubliners. (Joyce's narrator used "literally" incorrectly, but Joyce, like Salinger, was also out of your league).
Poor Tim McDonald, forever bound by the straightjacket of the dictionary he was given at first communion.
Many great writers have their narrators, writing first-person omniscient, mis-using the language, for some sort of intended effect. Purposeful misuse of the language is done all the time when writing in the vernacular.
Good lord, what about Faulkner, for example? There are dozens, probably hundreds of examples.
Still, I assume you'll agree that in this particular instance, that was not the case. If not, then you're giving far too much credit, and your argument becomes specious.
By the way, I'm not Catholic. I never took communion. I am unbound by religious fervor.
Your reply was a half-witted attempt to deflect attention away from my question, but in so doing you validate what Stacy alleges: "Resorting to childish put-downs is truly a Tim McDonald specialty." So I guess "bonehead", which you purport "is not used in the highest literary circles" should be acceptable to you.
Again, my allegation and question: "This is another example of you not researching what you print. Kind of like your statement in another one of your 'researched pieces', 'Only Nike and certain sponsors still love her unequivocally'. What kind of a boneheaded assertion is that?"
Damn it! What am I, half-witted or boneheaded?
Which is it? Make up your mind.
When doing proper research on any subject (or word definition in this case) one should always use more than one source as "Gospel" (Oh, that's right. You are unbound by religious fervor). That journalism lesson was probably not covered in your 8-day college internet course to obtain your sheepskin.
Below is a definition from another respected source:
Main Entry: crud•a•ble
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin crudibilis, from crudere
1 : capable of something disgusting, despicable or contemptible
I am still awaiting a reply to my allegation and question.
Interesting. What is the other "respectable source"?
As long as you're preaching journalism at me, you should know a journalist should always name the source, not simply refer to it as "respectable."
His rapier-like wit, effortless ability to turn a phrase and innate goodness make this multi-talented wordsmith a sheer joy to encounter no matter the genre.
McDonald has a gift few others can emulate. God bless you, sir.
Knock, knock, helloo, McFly? Anybody home?!
Mr. Jordann, to my knowledge, is simply a discerning reader who felt the need to express his appreciation for one of the most enlightened journalists of his time.
You present an excellent argument for justifying shameless self-promotion. But be advised, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it could be just "circumspect, dignified marketing".
Comments are closed for this post.