Gone but not forgotten
GusGus
colurblind
Our favorite Atlanta newspaper announced recently that long-time WSB-TV weekend reporter, JaQuitta Williams, would be leaving the station. This past week was her last. The Georgia native made the choice not long after defeating breast cancer.

Yes, I said long-time reporter. Williams' four-year stint is an anomaly in broadcast news today; and from what I'm hearing from profs and recently graduated friends, news today period.  

Williams told the AJC that, “When I came back from my cancer journey in January, I was different...I wanted my life to be more enjoyable. I wanted to do other things.” In her honor, WSB has created a Breast Cancer info page. Very commendable. According to the AJC article - figures - Williams had nothing but sweet harmony with WSB and indeed has another job lined up, but, "with respect to WSB, won’t reveal what it is until after she leaves." Supposedly, she's heading to D.C. to work in Obama's press office. More than likely, a smart move. Of anything...an awesome opportunity for a girl from Augusta!

But I can't help but wonder...how much of this was Williams wanting to enjoy life as a new woman, and how much of this was Williams wanting to enjoy life sans Cox? Even so, how much of her decision reflects to overall mood of journalists today? Is the passion slipping quicker? Is is true: Are all pr people burnt-out journalists? Do hard times and even harder demands make the towel easier to throw? Obviously, cancer will change you forever. And yes, I can understand her wanting something more. But just one tiny cell in my mind can't help but ask - was this an easy way out? I don't know the details of her deal with Obama's camp, but this seems like a rather swift paradigm shift.  How can some journalists stay in it for a lifetime, and some just seem to fade? Is it passion, guts, place of work or just attitude? It's also been said that they told her the eff word; She was fired. They would. Only an organization so wrapped up in everything but what really matters would get rid of a staff member that the people of Atlanta identify with. Okay, so maybe she does wear a lot of make-up. Maybe that's why WSB "fired" her. They couldn't afford her make-up artist. Highly doubtful. I think she made a decision that a lot of reporters are considering today. What's next? You have to ask yourself. If it's a lot of nothing, then move on. There are other markets in the sea.  

That being said - I wish this 37 year-old all of the best in her new-found lifestyle.

P.s. If I were Williams, I'd take Doug Richards up on his offer to guest blog for Live Apartment Fire.    

AJC ya later
GusGus
colurblind
If you read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or have been paying any attention to the news lately, you know something's in the air at 72 Marietta St...as in the AJC screwed.

Aside from the fact that just about every newspaper's ad revenues in this country are down, Atlanta's favorite print version to finger point to continues to do laps in the pool of poor writing and editing, and is even going off into the deep drama end of the pool. (I mean, seriously, how lazy does a writer have to be to write "etc..." in a big to-do story like that?)
 
I know that it's unrealistic to say that newspapers - or any professional organization at that - could possibly resist drama, but it seems to invite itself into the offices of the AJC. As explained in Mostly Media, one of my favorite media tell-alls, three (first it was two) of the paper's top editors were fired in August for less than appropriate behavior in one of Atlanta's favorite bare-all destinations -- the Pink Pony. I hope they got their monies worth that night, because it cost them their job. If they had any sense, the editors who have refrained from snapping pictures of *ah hem* nude dancers with company-issued PDAs and would have not sent the pictures with their AJC email addresses. Obviously the lack of common sense that got them to this joint in the first place failed to guide them through proper strip club etiquette. Is picture taking even allowed? Maybe they had to name-drop. Maybe they had to mention they're an editor for a "big time" newspaper. Guess that didn't get them too far...

But the drama doesn't stop there. The executive news editor of the AJC, Julia Wallace, made each of her employees' mornings with a "hey we're all doomed" email sent back in July. In this email, which was kindly posted in its entirety by yet another favorite blogger, Reporter-Cub, Wallace thanks everyone for their professionalism while the publication works through these difficult times after, of course, announcing that Cox is asking to cut approximately 50 jobs out of the newsroom. This is after a cut of 35 in 2007 during a reorganization. Hard times? Yes. Professional? Hardly.

The AJC can not waste its time singing a sad song right now. They need to keep in mind that today, anyone, anywhere can read the news for free...on the internet. This is nothing that a spiffier print version is going to solve. They need to be focusing as much as possible on a new media initiative. Whether it's more videos, more photos or interaction, they need a stronger web presence. Them and just about the rest of the news print industry. What do you think the AJC should do to revive its presence in Atlanta? Ask all Atlanta-area strip clubs to start asking for media ID also Merge with Creative Loafing Hire copy editors who actually read the stories Create more content on UGA's football team...who doesn't want that?

(no subject)
GusGus
colurblind
Now this is news.

Thank you, Dalton.

Another instance of crappy Atlanta media
GusGus
colurblind
The AJC posted this story this morning on their web site.

Can I just say? Get your facts right. Especially when dealing with a story about death.

141, the highway they supposedly crashed on, does not go into Cherokee Co.

All it takes is looking at a map.

&edit At 1:08 p.m. the story was edited to say "140" instead of "141".

Battery running low? Oh, just unbutton me in the back.
GusGus
colurblind
Yesterday, I read this article about how some company in Japan is now marketing a bra that has a solar-powered battery pack. The bra, it says, can be used to charge things like a cell phone or iPod.

They said that the biggest problem they're having so far is figuring out how the sun can reach it...because, obviously, girls can not go out in public in just bras. To me, this is only the beginning of their struggles.

By far, my most favourite (que the sarcasm) part of the article is when the writer quotes a girl who has given it a test drive.

She says: "It is very comfortable and I can really feel involved in eco-friendly efforts as well."

I would LOVE to talk to one girl...one girl... who is not getting paid to wear this thing and hear from her, honestly, if this bra is "comfortable." I'm not even sure I've worn one bra-magical charging powers or not-that is comfortable. To say that a bra that serves as a battery can be worn anywhere, and not be annoying just seems unimaginable. I'd love to talk to a Mom who wears that bra and chases her two year old around all day. I'm sure she'd tell me just how comfortable that is.

This concept just seems so ridiculous to me. And not only that, but also possibly slightly sexist. No. Very sexist. Where's the man's solar-powered thong? Why aren't we charging our iPods off his privates?

Maybe we'll see the bracelet that is also a stapler next. Or even maybe the hair-pin that holds rubber bands. Then companies wouldn't even need a supply closet....just tons of women who work there!

You don't say?
GusGus
colurblind
Did you know...the word grenadine (which is a sweet, sugary syrup),comes from the French word for pomegranate, pome granate.

Granate also has a very close resemblance to many language's word for grenade. Latin's is granata. Spanish & Portuguese -- granada. Dutch -- granaat. And, well, French -- grenade. Which is funny because both look very similar as well.

Totally not a coincidence! After doing some research, I found that indeed grenades are named after the fruit. "Garnet, grenade, and pomegranate are derived from the adjective form of the word, which is granatus, meaning 'having many seeds', which certainly applies to the pomegranate. The Romans first called it granatum. We came up with our word for it by adding pomum, the Latin word for 'fruit' to it, which makes if "fruit of many seeds."

The seeds are actually the edible part that many turn into juice. Totally not applicable to grenades, though.

Lame-Gauge
GusGus
colurblind
As the final hours to my last EVER spring break dwindled, I felt a blog arising. Lucky, yes. I need to do this more often. Period mark. I'm going to try to do it once a day based on the amount of writing homework I have along with my mood. Most of it will probably consist of reflections on class, postings of crap I want to buy and/or my general views on society. Just a warning to whomever may be reading this (sorry).

I was thinking about a discussion that was had in the first session of my linguistic class earlier this semester. What he said about language has erked me ever since January, and today I think I finally got his principle and totally agree with him. Dr. Johnson said that language, as a whole, is what it is because society makes it that way and there is no standard or "superlative" language. For example, the phrase "you and me" is widely used; almost always used in place of when the phrase "you and I" should be used correctly. Is that due to the low rate of properly-educated adults? Probably, but that's beside the point. Anyway, people use "you and me" in today's world like "you and I" should be used in grammar fantasy land. And...it's accepted. And...he says...it's not incorrect. WHAT? Are you kidding me? There may not be a standard language, but there sure as hells bells is standard grammar. And that, folks, is not correct/standard grammar. He says that it is not incorrect because society has taken it in -- has made it correct. Due to the fact that the middleman, the largest populated class, uses this language, it is common and popular. It is language. It is what we (I'm using this as a society) use to communicate effectively, and how we manipulate our mutually intelligible way of communication to mean something. It's true. It is. Sad? yes. Odd? No. However, this reminded me of another trend in society. Fashion. All of the little pre-mos (pre-teen emos) walking up and down the mall in their denim minis, fishnet stockings, sherpa-lined Uggs, and t-shirts are most definitely breaking fashion rules. But, it is not incorrect because so is the rest of America's pre-mos. Yes, in fashion fantasy land, they are committing almost every fashionista faux pas ever. But in society, they are cute, young, hip, with-it...whatever you want to say. It's accepted and that makes it right. It's the same thing with language. Okay, so saying "you and me," in many situations, is incorrect, but everyone does it. To say anything differently in the said company, would not be understood, and therefore not language.

So here's to say that I understand his point. Have I accepted it? Maybe. Do I want to? No. I mean, language is great and all because it makes us individual -- our dialects, native creoles, accents. It's all so rich and flavorful. But I think that there should be a point at which a linguist can stand up and say "enough!" There has to be a guideline. But who decides? Which country? Which dialect? I just don't think it's that simple.

So tonight I leave you with this pure genius fierceness:

(no subject)
GusGus
colurblind
Who knew that the word pharmaceutical came from the root greek word, pharmedon?

Pharmedon meaning medicine....also meaning poison.

?

Log in