. . . and He Claims to be an Expert on Cyber Law
Published October 22nd, 2010 | 
As much as I would like to escape to a spa for a massage, facial and a slimming body wrap, duty calls. Things to write, submissions to read and other nonsense to deal with.
Nonsense, like this blog post I read this morning — "Is it Plagiarism ? or Is it Irresponsible Publishing?". The author, Naavi (Avatar, anyone?)identifies himself as the author of a book called Cyber Laws for Every Netizen in India and claims the a similarly titled book, The Cyberlaw Handbook: for every Netizen is plagiarized from his own.
Certainly, it’s possible. This Naavi and the other book’s author, Vakul Sharma are both citizens of India and both writing about the same subject. However, I doubt it. Why? Well, both books were originally published around the same time period. I’m always skeptical about claims of plagiarism where the works in question were published within a couple of years of each other because it’s likely both authors were writing their books at around the same time, so unless you can prove that one author had direct access to the other’s draft or notes, it’s a dubious claim. Secondly, even if Naavi’s book was published before Sharma’s, Naavi’s book doesn’t seem to have as wide of a distribution, so it’s certainly plausible that Sharma had never heard of it. Thirdly, Sharma is a well-known lawyer and expert on Indian Cyber Law who has written about the subject quite extensively over the years. It’s highly doubtful that he’d require any insights from Naavi, who I suspect is more of a self-educated novice on the subject. Lastly, titles aren’t protected by copyright. So, if the only similarity between the two books is a couple of words in the title and the general subject matter, I’m afraid Naavi has no case.
So his post is, as I say,self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Grist for the Content Mill
Published October 5th, 2010 | In a blog post that appeared back in March, freelancer Carol Tice offered her own view about content mills and why "serious" freelance writers should avoid them. I stumbled upon the post the other day while reading a related topic and thought I might play devil’s advocate here. First, Ms. Tice’s reasons for avoiding content mills:
1. It does not teach you to report.
2. It does not teach you to research.
3. It does not give you nurturing editor relationships.
4. It does not teach you to market.
5. It does not enhance your reputation.
6. It’s a model that may disappear.
It does not teach you to report. No, I suppose writing for a content mill doesn’t teach you all that much about reporting. But here’s the thing: Content mill writing is not journalism. Journalism, as defined by my trusty Random House Dictionary states that Journalism is the profession of gathering, writing, editing and publishing news. News. N-E-W-S. A short article about home remedies for acne isn’t nearly the same as a story about police corruption in a particular city. One is gathering of information about a very specific search topic, while the other is a response to a current event. Writing for a content mill is basically SEO writing. As such, writing for a content mill is not supposed to teach you about reporting.
It does not teach you to research. Again, no it doesn’t. But, a couple of points: if you are writing a news article for a magazine or newspaper for the “big bucks”, one presumes that you already know how to do research. If you happen to get a freelance writing job off of a query and you don’t know how to do research, you sure picked a fine time to learn! It’s fairer to say that content mill writing doesn’t usually entail a lot of research, but the better you are at doing it, the easier the task will be.
It does not give you nurturing editor relationships. True enough. You don’t usually have much contact with an editor when writing for a content mill. In most cases, none at all. I’m not suggesting this is a good thing, but I do think, that unless you are completely delusional about your prospects for building a career out of writing for a content mill, you are not looking for nurturing from this particular relationship. On the other hand, some content mills such as Helium and Demand Studios do offer discussion forums and such where advice is given either for good or ill, that one might take for nurturing.
It does not teach you to market. Another fair point save for one thing: Is the author suggesting that this should be the function of a content mill? Now, you know I have published several literary publications over the years. I cannot truly imagine assigning story ideas and essay topic based on keyword phrases and accepting work from writers without a real editorial process. But then again, I’m not running a content mill. I’m not in business to make money off of Google (at least not primarily). A content mill works precisely because the writers don’t have to market themselves. The business model would come to a screeching halt if the “editor” had to spend too much time evaluating submissions.
It does not enhance your reputation. No, I certainly wouldn’t advise any writer to add content mill publications to a resume any more than I’d advise an aspiring poet to admit to having work on Poetry.com, but this does suppose that there are large numbers of writers looking to content mills to that end. Speaking only for myself, when I stoop so low as to knock out an article for a content mill, I’m doing it because its a lazy way to make a certain amount of money quickly without much effort, freeing me to pursue more important tasks (like serious writing). Reputation doesn’t even enter into the equation. Writing for a content mill is something you should be neither proud of nor ashamed of. And writing for a content mill, while not a living, will buy groceries or put gas in the car, or pay for a new suit of clothes. And in these uncertain times, that small sum of money can often be the difference between eating or going hungry. Reputation. Reputation be damned.
It’s a model that may disappear. Possibly, but not this year, and probably not next year. Or even the year after that. I think this is just wishful thinking on the part of writers who don’t like content mills. No doubt the business will evolve to some degree, but as long as Google is in business and making money, there will be content mills because the Internet is a hungry bitch from hell that feeds on content.
I’m not going to tell you whether you should or should not write for a content mill, but I will say that unless you are making big money writing the “important stuff”, there are worse ways to make a little extra money than writing for a content mill.
Questions Answered?
Published July 23rd, 2010 |
Patricia, over at the Communication Exchange posed some questions for her readers to answer and since I have nothing better to write about this morning, I thought I’d post a response:
1. Why are some bloggers (like me) obsessive about posting regularly and others seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude regarding the frequency of their writings?
I guess posting frequency depends on an individual’s goals, work ethic and how much time they have in which to write. For myself, I try to post at least three times a week, but sometimes manages multiple postings in a single day. And there have been periods due to illness or other commitments when I’ve posted hardly at all. It depends. As a rule, I think bloggers should blog every day. That’s how you keep people coming back. That being said, I think it’s probably better to write a few solid posts infrequently than to post frequently just for the sake of posting. There have been plenty of times when I’ve done the posting for the sake of posting thing and what I usually end up with is a lot of useless filler. So another rule of thumb should be, if you have nothing to post about, it’s probably not such a bad idea to take the day off.
2. Are Facebook (and other personal information-sharing sites) making us more or less effective interpersonal communicators?
Even though I have a Facebook account and a Twitter account, etc., I don’t really spend much time on any of them, so I’m probably not the best person to ask this question. However, I’ll vote in the “less effective” column. As much as I love the Internet and all that jazz, I’m still a big believer in the lost art of letter writing. Email and texting is great in a pinch, but our over-reliance on these new modes of communication is making us lazy, I think. As to whether its actually making us stupid, only time will tell. I understand that there are studies that suggest the opposite — that the Internet and such is making us smarter, rewiring our brains. Those studies may actually be correct. There are also studies that suggest reading EBooks are encouraging people to read more, not less. On the other hand, I’ve listened to teenagers whose communication skills have been heavily influenced by Facebook, texting, etc. and I’m not yet convinced. So many of them are speaking a language that no longer even remotely resembles coherent English and they are quickly growing into adults who no longer speak recognizable English, so until I see some improvement in that area, I’m going to stick with the "dumber, less effective" category. (I realize, of course, that my inability to speak their language may mean that I’m simply a less effective communicator, not them)
3. What can be done (or even should be done) to temper the increasingly nasty political communication in our country? Or am I totally mis-reading the volatility of most political communication (that is, between government officials, politicians, members of the media, etc.)?
I don’t know if I should even try to answer this one given that anytime I even mention politics on this blog, I end up losing old friends and making new enemies, but whatever… I think if you look at our political discourse from a purely historical perspective, it’s probably not as nasty as it has been in certain bygone eras. That this notion of civility in politics is mostly a myth. On the other hand, we’re living in 2010, not 1810, and it’s clear that the Internet and cable broadcast media amplifies the negativity and interferes with effective governance. What does it say about our politics that the current U.S. president went from a 75% approval rating to 44% in less than 2 years in office? How much of that is reflective of his leadership and how much of it is the direct result of a constant media barrage telling the country that Obama’s no good? I don’t know, but I’m thinking that our media doesn’t practice real journalism anymore — just propaganda that serves the interests of big corporations.
4. Is The Bachelorette (or, for that matter, The Bachelor) doomed to never produce a viable couple because humans are incapable of falling in love in an organized, systematic way?
I hate reality shows, so I’m not really a big believer in the premise that you can meet your soulmate in this manner. However, I’d point out that that one Bachelorette did marry that fireman guy and they are still together and have children. I’d also point out the other reality stars (albeit not necessarily from the same shows/seasons have gotten together and married). There’s no right way to make a love match. A reality show is no more or less effective than any other manner, I don’t suppose. I think the problem with these specific shows, is that the producers are far less interested in making a love match than they are on producing an entertaining show that draws big ratings, so the men and women they collect aren’t the type of people who mesh well as couples. Remember, conflict and incompatibility equals ratings.
