NEW YORK (Reuters) – For the people’s obituary of Steve Jobs, look on Twitter.
The death of Apple Inc’s visionary leader prompted an outpouring by Apple fans and customers that appeared to dwarf any news ever chronicled on the micro-blogging site.
NEW YORK, July 22 (Reuters) – Five more senior executives
are leaving Thomson Reuters Corp (TRI.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (TRI.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) in a shake-up
of its Markets division, which has posted disappointing revenue
growth amid slow sales of a key new product.
The departures follow that of Markets chief Devin Wenig,
announced late Thursday, and reflect the concerns of the board
and the controlling shareholder, Canada’s Thomson family, about
the division, which serves banks, brokerages and other firms
and contributes almost 60 percent of the company’s revenue.
The Gainsbourg song is called “Je suis venu te dire que je m’en vais” — “I’ve come to tell you that I’m leaving.” It also serves as notice to you that I’ll move my remarks over to my Tumblr site. Why?
1. It seems easier to maintain one blog with all my thoughts on journalism, music or whatever I want to write about.
HONG KONG/NEW YORK (Reuters) – Titleist, one of world’s best-known golf equipment names, is getting a new owner after alcoholic drinks maker Fortune Brands Inc struck a deal to sell the brand to Fila Korea Ltd for $1.23 billion.
Fortune (FO.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) now will spend more time in the clubhouse than on the fairway. The maker of Jim Beam bourbon will focus on liquor after dropping its Acushnet subsidiary that makes Titleist golf balls, clubs and other equipment.
You often can’t get through a day of reading business news without coming across the convenient, but repulsive phrases, “a growing chorus,” and “all eyes are on,” or some variation. Usually, there is a growing chorus of support or opposition to something, and all the investors’ eyes are trained on one thing or another.
The Moron Tabernacle Choir performs Oedipus Rex, wide-eyed and in mid-crescendo.
I’m already trying to edit myself. That headline is off. It should say, “You should not write like a businessperson just because you cover business.”
You often might think to yourself, upon reading my blog posts, “yes, of course, Robert. Tell us something that we don’t know.” But remember this: when you read our stories, you often see a swamp of business jargon. Some reporters where we work have told me that they read our stories and then visit the New York Times website to find out what’s really going on because they can’t penetrate the business talk. Some endorsement.
What is a supply chain? I read about it every day when I edit stories. It appears to be a global network of companies that build things that go inside the things of other companies, and so on. I can imagine a hypothetical supply chain: someone makes rubber somewhere in Asia, and delivers it wholesale to a company that cuts it up into little pieces. Those little pieces become little pieces in the cog of some other product made by another company that goes inside an engine (or something) of yet another company. That company then sells the vehicle (as it were) to some other company that uses it for yet another reason.
My question: can we stop calling it the supply chain? Is there a better word or more descriptive phrase? I don’t know. I do know, however, that “supply chain” and “global supply chain” sound like literary crutches for people whose ability to produce well written articles is suffering from a chronic disability.
I spy the term “oil major” in our stories more often than I should. In fact, spying it once is spying it too often. Oil majors, judging my searching on the Internet, appear to be the world’s biggest oil companies. Wikipedia says they are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total SA. Well, Wikipedia says they are “supermajors.” Does that mean that there is a lower tier of plain old majors?
Why bother to have the argument? Let’s refer to them as “the world’s biggest oil companies” when we write about them. Maybe we can say, “Chevron, one of the world’s biggest oil companies…” and not, “Oil major Chevron…”
There surely are more than three phrases that you must avoid when you’re writing stories about things that the U.S. government is doing. Two of them stand out, however. I know them well because I used them many times before realizing that I was doing harm, not good.
This is the term that we journalists use to talk about a legal state of affairs. We talk about how education companies or software companies are dealing with doing business under one or another kind of regulatory regime. I don’t know who came up with this phrase, but whoever it was, good on him or her for being the first. The rest of us have worked it to death, however. Do regular people know what a regulatory regime is? Let’s instead say that the companies are doing their business under rules that do this or that, or make it easy or hard for them to operate. We don’t have to say they’re operating in a regulatory regime of any kind. To me, that sounds like companies are operating under repressive Sandinistas. They might feel that way, but we don’t have to agree with them.
Howard Luxenberg, a Reuters journalist from 1972 to 2003, wrote me a note regarding my earlier blog post about how reporters ought to spend more time calling people at home and more time digging for news instead of lining up for spoon feedings. You will recall that this angered a public relations worker, who said that such behavior amounts to stalking.
Your quest is a good one. If you can instill one thought in journalists looking at a press release it is: tell me something that isn’t in the press release. This gets them thinking and searching, and helps unlock the mystery to good reporting and a successful career.