So this is what I had to do to get a blog posted edgewise on the VicAd website amidst ALL the VA Staff blogs.
I counted a couple days ago, and the recurring theme went something like this: at least 31 of 50 blogs posted of late were by VA staffers, many of them with little to say. And, if you count Uncle History, the unholy alliance of ex- (or something like that) VA denizens, you come up with more like 36.
Wow.
Just wow.
And now, it seems they are tinkering with their site to accommodate "increased content". I'll give ya three guesses where the "increased content" is coming from.
RIGHT! The staff! Because I can assure you that regular posters, not just myself included, have slacked off on posting, and from my count, non-VA staff blogs have actually decreased.
Meanwhile, many people are complaining that posting time takes longer, and their blogs are disappearing into cyberspace.
Get it right, VA! Either make this a user-friendly site that has not been completely taken over by your so-called "reporters" who call a visit to the Holocaust Museum "Fun" and a man's death caused by a woman's "stilleto" [sic] shoe "just plain awesome" (oh, by the way, that particular reporter is their "Faith" section star) or get off the pot and let somebody else take over the paper and start from scratch.
2 comments:
Oh, gee, where to start?
I have tried for sometime now to rationalize how the Advocate operates. It is, at times, as if they have now sense of good taste. Couple that with the bulk of the remaining posters trying to share one brain, and you get the cluster f**k we call the Advocate forum.
You know how I feel about the Advocate headlines. I have offered more than once to write the headlines for them. The Holocaust Museum headline was so offensive. But, hey, I'm not a professional journalist. Perhaps I wouldn't know good journalism if I saw it, huh?
As to the changes we're experiencing, I think they are prepping the site for some major changes, and I am pretty sure most folks will not be happy with them. But, we'll have to wait and see.
Well said, Edith Ann.
I tend to believe that we DO know good journalism when we see it because we are intelligent individuals who can think for ourselves and have mastered the basic skills of spelling, grammar, and social grace. So, therefore, it is so easy to spot those who have not.
Yeah, I think this is probably the tip of the iceberg, with the lumbering hulk below the water being a paid online edition. Exclusively. Or maybe something equally nefarious.
As you said, we will have to wait and see.
Post a Comment