Not on the Wires - Latest Comments

Re: The Ferrari of Clothing

Nimho — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:37:52 -0000

poor reporting..no wonder no one visits the page

Re: Window on Uzbekistan

loudpen — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:40:26 -0000

I love your introduction of Uzbekistan! I received the same response when I decided to go out there and cover the event for my fashion blog. Sadly, anything that ended in 'stan' got a horrible rep after 9/11 especially in the US and the UK. And it really is a shame because it's a beautiful place.

Re: Lemoniez on the runway

Lola — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 04:51:29 -0000

yes and he was completely unfriendly to the media as well!

Re: Lemoniez on the runway

Mumasher — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:44:11 -0000

His collection is 100% opposite of Agatha Ruiz de la prada's collection!) BUt I liked it too!) people has the alternative to choice.

Re: Basso and Brooke’s collection on display

T Joffy — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:37:33 -0000

the four-dress collection was nice
i wish basso & brooke were here too

Re: Exchange of Knowledge

Kamilyakubov86 — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:30:40 -0000

It was a huge event, the opening ceremony...The biggest celebrities from all over the world came to Tashkent! And the organizers are just awesome.

Re: Window on Uzbekistan

Alex — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:40:22 -0000

Thanks for your comment Adam. Enjoy the updates. Alex

Re: Window on Uzbekistan

Charlie McHenry — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:22:05 -0000

Hope you get a chance to hear Sevara Nazarkhan perform while you're there. http://realworldrecords.com/ar... Be great to get some video of Uzbek traditional music. Looking forward to pictures of Tashkent & Samarkand.

Re: Window on Uzbekistan

Adam Smith — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:35:49 -0000

Wonderful shots! Thanks for this bright window...

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Tyron Devotta — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:08:34 -0000

I agree with Donnacha DeLongNo Gravatar.....Churnalism is not journalism being certain of itself, it’s about proprietors not caring about journalism at all.

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Donnacha DeLong — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:01:40 -0000

Charlie sed:
"Journalism must never reduce itself to a set of principles, codes (even the NUJ’s) etc."

Well, the NUJ code is regularly amended (it was completely rewritten around 3 years ago), so it's an adaptable code and democratically decided.

"As soon as journalism is certain of itself then it is in trouble. That’s what happened to it over the last 20 years."

Hmmm, gotta say I really disagree. The decline in journalism falls squarely at the abandonment of decent standards and quality and the increasing focus on gossip, tattle and fabrications. Churnalism is not journalism being certain of itself, it's about proprietors not caring about journalism at all.

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Zarina Sojournposse — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:18:53 -0000

So why the link to AP for "old habits", Marcus? is that one of those "Titanics that refused to turn over" that NOTW mentioned at last BBC School of Journalism seminar ;) ?

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Charlotte Barry — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:51:08 -0000

Accuracy. Nothing annoys a target audience more than factual errors. We need to be prepared to correct these as soon as they occur

Representation. This is connected to the above, but less easily defined. Misrepresentation - typecasting in particular - can cause misunderstanding and unnecessary tension between journalists and their audience.

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Donnacha DeLong — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:12:54 -0000

Also, how could I forget - the principles in the NUJ Code of Conduct - http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPag...

Re: Five things about journalism that must never change

Donnacha DeLong — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:11:54 -0000

Great piece Marcus, one thing I'd add is that, to a large degree, the old Factors of Newsworthiness are always worth referring back to - http://www.cybercollege.com/ne... - as both a guide for journalists and also as an explanation of why so much of the media is like it is.

Re: Video: iPad for Journalists

Alex Wood — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:24:07 -0000

Hi Jose,

Would love you to dub the video. Could you record an audio track and get in touch by email:

alex@notonthewires.com

Thanks again for getting in touch.
Alex

Re: Lady Gaga: Lessons for Journalists?

José Erre — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:39:05 -0000

Oh, I'm going to do a full translation of this post for my blog in Spanish for journalists and communicators (all the credit for you, of course).

Re: Video: iPad for Journalists

José Erre — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:37:05 -0000

Hi Alex, would you be interested in having me dub this video into Spanish. I've got a blog on journalism and communication (http://www.5Wh.info) and this video would be great for it.

Just let me know if you think it might be interesting. I'm thinking about the documentary kind dubbing where there's no need for perfect lip-sync and your voice remains clearly in the background.

Great blog, by the way. I'm looking forward to improving mine in the near future.

José Erre

Re: Lady Gaga: Lessons for Journalists?

Zarina Sojournposse — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:43:01 -0000

love this article. it makes sense, storytelling through various contexts. worth pointing out that journalists like Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell and TS Elliot were also poets/storytellers. those were the days when wordsmiths truly own their storytelling crafts.

Re: 10 New Ways to Make Money in Journalism

Pop T'art London — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:22:53 -0000

Just stumbled across your website. Very nice. Good articles. Apart from the grammatical error in this second article I've just read - I'll leave you to work it out! Kinda contradicts your claims of journalsim expertise...Other than that, I really like the design and layout as well as your ethos.

Re: Why I hate the word 'geek'

Dr Maz — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:30:15 -0000

Here's what worries me when we get bogged down in semantics: We begin to lose sight of where we initially left off and, thus, where we are heading. I've been classified (and even self-classified when at the appropriate occasion) as a 'geek'. Then as a 'GirlGeek' and even 'GirlyGeek'. I think that the last two grate the most. Why? Well, much is dependent on the WHO, the WHERE and the WHY the reference is being made. In one interview with (what shall remain a nameless 'Geek' related publication - well known in technology circles and the journalist was related to 'wires' lets just say) I was asked 'what's my favourite colour for technology?' Me *sigh* rolls eyes; the interviewer couldn't get beyond the label 'GirlGeek' - so throw gender into the mix and you arrive at patronising with a supposed 'positive' spin.

So, Marcus I agree, when there is too much claim to the contrary for 'geek' to be used as a positive syntax, this can only ever be in a reductive sense. At once to get away from the words numerous meanings over the centuries, ranging from 'a fool' as a 'geck'; to a 'smart person' our supposed 'modern' 'geek'.

By the 1980s the 'geeks' were the aficionados of computers and the internet. Enter Mr Jobs and Mr Gates from stage left. From the Usenet group net.jokes of February 1984 it was time that geeks got emotive:
I was a lonely young computer geek With [sic] a program due ‘most every week.

Today the Oxford Dictionary states:

/geek/

• noun informal, chiefly N. Amer. 1 an unfashionable or socially inept person. 2 an obsessive enthusiast.

— DERIVATIVES geeky adjective.

— ORIGIN from the related English dialect word geck ‘fool’.

So I'm mindful to go back to the discussion as initiated. 'Why I hate the word geek': What is a geek? My answer: A subjective work in progress...

I think we’re ready for another reformulation. Not one single reductive meaning but a movement away from derivatives and the default 'geek means 'smart''. So here's to doing more of the kind of 'crazy' stuff that evokes these very debates - to the annoyance of a few others. But keep in the mind that the Oxford Dictionary still has it that 'geek' is synonymous with 'fool'.

Re: Why I hate the word 'geek'

Marcus — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:48:10 -0000

Hi Eddie,

It's more that by using the word, even if we claim to use it in a positive, reclamative sense, we are complicit in our own self-ridicule by accepting the caricature in the first place, and thus also in ignoring the things that 'geek' is the opposite of, which have no corresponding word.

Re: Why I hate the word 'geek'

Marcus — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:38:25 -0000

Hi Ante,

No, the argument isn't that the word doesn't allow you to blend in with the crowd. Very few people who have left a mark on the world blended in with the crowd (although maybe they wanted to), and in any case, very few people - 'geeks' or otherwise - actually want to be nondescript. The point is that while something far more damaging is happening, it is the category of 'geek' and all of the positive qualities it is (debatably) said to refer to that are pointed out, typified, caricatured, and whether you like it or not, often ridiculed.

Re: Why I hate the word 'geek'

Eddie A. Tejeda — Tue, 25 May 2010 18:05:05 -0000

The reclaiming of the word "geek" has insidious roots in capitalism, public relations and marketing?

And here I thought that the reclaiming of the word was an uncoordinated attempt by those who were called geeks to defuse the word's pejorative meaning by embracing it's inherent positive qualities.

Re: Why I hate the word 'geek'

Ante Vukorepa — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:48:25 -0000

So, essentially, the thing that's wrong about the term geek is... that it doesn't allow you to blend in with the crowd? Pardon my french, but that's just daft. It's the idea that everything that's different and does not fit in with the average that's the problem and the real issue. And it's a viewpoint that's, unfortunately, prevalent in US educational system (or at least, that's how it looks to us, outsiders).

"Geek" never had negative connotations, outside the original circus/carnie meaning. "Nerd" and "geek" are not synonyms and they never were synonyms. The former is derogatory, the latter is not.

There is no inherent shame in being a geek nor being termed one. The only shameful connotations come from individuals who make them up ;)