Well, 12 national newspapers via the associated press, numerous gay press coverage, a number 1 video on LOGO, mainstream TV coverage and now a video with Margeret Cho giving head to the lead singer later, and I guess the joke was on me. Some gay Pop Culture editor I turned out to be.
-
CPSteve
Total blog posts: 1
MyPride friends: 1
-
JustinBoltz
Total blog posts: 1
MyPride friends: 1
I've often wondered what it takes to get noticed on Wikipedia.org, "the free [online] encyclopedia that anyone can edit." With close to a million English entries, the most underground, obscure and independant of arts, entertainment, literature and culture projects and/or personalities are often found in its listings. Since the listings are open to the interpretation of the site's users, I'm inclined to think the encyclopedic-penning may not be the most credible, and may even have been created by the person featured in the entry, but I've never cared that much to look that heavily into it.
Nevertheless, I have at times fantascized about reaching a certain level of public significance where someone, somewhere deems me worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. I think about how old I will be at the time, what press photo will be used, how my biography would read, what accomplishments will be noted and what external links will be posted to warrant my entry.
World wide web acclaim, internet-related recognition; dare to dream...
Until that day comes, if and when it actually does, I take solace in my sorta-linkage via writer Josh Kilmer-Purcell's wikipedia entry. Though he took part in dozens of interviews to promote his memoir, I Am Not Myself These Days, only 10 are listed in his external links--one of which is the very one I wrote for ChicagoPride.com (www.chicagopride.com/news/interview.cfm/articleid/99025).
The interview itself comes from a time when I had a very different, and less refined, perspective as a writer. So I'm not bragging about the article, but I AM bragging about the byline linked on Wikipedia.
Suck on that most googled celebrity of 2006, Janet Jackson! And to think, my wardrobe didn't even have to "malfunction."
That day, feeling fat around the underwear-clad men of Minibar, I held up the back of the float with some other ChicagoPride.com-ers. However, after a few warm beers I got the courage to move my way to the front, and climb on a bench to be on top above the rest!
The beer may not done anything about my fat feelings, but it sure made me feel bold! However after a few abrupt stops and bumps, causing me to literally fall onto Pritchard twice, I opted to step down and return to my seat in the back.
-
CPBill
Total blog posts: 1
MyPride friends: 1
Great job JF!
-
zoozoo6
Total blog posts: 1
MyPride friends: 1
Since donning the title of "editor" I've become very sensitive to the function and flow of any written work. I've found that the easiest and most effective way to validate oneself as an authoritative voice, is to be correct and conventional: Use proper grammar, be objective with subject and focus, avoid first-person perspectives and be wary of passive speech patterns--especially with words choices. Seemingly synonymous words used in speech will contain specific defining nuances that can underhandedly distract or alienate a reader from the page (This is why I chose to write "I've found" in this paragraph, and not "I've learned." (Write jasonf[at]chicagopride.com if interested in a full explanation.)
It's not always as easy as it sounds, but basically a good writer's goal should be to engage, not distract, every reader. No matter how provocative a subject, bold statements, unaccredited opinions, assumptions and bad grammar are leading, and therefore pull people off the page. But conversely, seemingly uninteresting topics, such as an editor's rant on grammar rules, can be informative and entertaining if written appropriately.
So here's my problem with here!: The Associated Press (AP)--my style guide of choice because it pertains to journalism--calls for companies or organizations to be textually represented by how the organization represents itself. With its lowercase "h" and ending exclamation point, "here!" essentially yields multiple syntax errors no matter where it falls in any sentence--distracting the reader. To show the inaccurate depictation is intentional, the AP stipulates the insertion of the parenthetical acronym "(sic)" literally meaning "spelling is correct." But isn't that distracting as well? When I see "(sic)" I ask myself what's spelled wrong and why. I investigate the unconventional usage and/or spelling and wonder why it is depicted thus. When I see "(sic)" I am no longer reading the text; I'm questioning it. The writer has failed the reader in form even though the function is correct.
here! (sic) invokes a grammatical paradox! And it's totally rocking my entire professional belief system.
I wonder if they'd be willing to change their name.
The leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidates including Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. The candidates will appear sequentially and converse with host Margaret Carlson (journalist/columnist) and co-panelists Melissa Etheridge (performer/advocate), Joe Solmonese (President, Human Rights Campaign Foundation), and Jonathan Capehart (writer, Washington Post).
The forum will be taped before a live studio audience in Los Angeles and airs without commercial interruption on Logo and at VisibleVote08.com.
1 comment