Ombudsman reader Sam pointed me to an interesting post that recently went up on Insert Credit:
Our Final Fantasy 12 trailer has been removed. Why? Tim received this message from *name withheld* at Squenix:
"Please remove the movie from your sight as soon as possible. Otherwise, we Square Enix will proceed to the legal step."
Note: The original post had the name of the PR person.
Insert Credit complied with the request, which is obviously the right course of action here. But they also started a forum thread devoted to Photoshopped images that make fun of the Square/Enix representative's admittedly shaky English.
Sam asked me whether I though it was "good business for a 'journalistic' 'source' to openly mock a PR agent with a shaky grasp of English?" Frankly I'm wholly undecided on the issue. I think it's a tad insensitive, but I think it's pretty funny at the same time. So I'll open the issue up to the floor. Post your thoughts using the link below. Let's get some conversation going here.
Here's wishing a happy Thanksgiving to all my U.S. readers.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Responsible rumor-mongering
If you read any internet gaming message boards on the week leading up to Nov. 15, you probably read quite a few rumors about possible events by Microsoft and/or Bungie to celebrate the anniversary of the U.S. release of the XBox and Halo, respectively. You could also read these rumors on at least one respected video game news site, The Digital Gaming Network (TheDGN).
Between Nov. 8 and Nov. 12, TheDGN posted eight seperate stories about potential Nov. 15 surprises. All of these stories (except for one refutation: Bungie's Speaks Out) were rumors based on questionable, if not totally baseless, evidence. The stories discussed such possibilities as a secret release of Halo 2, the shipping of Halo 2 promotional materials, and the release of "Halo Deluxe featuring online play."
Every one of the stories ended up being false. According to TheDGN Deputy Editor David Allen said the whole thing was a hoax, "deliberately created by several people, although they did not neccessarily work together."
TheDGN Editor Mark Milian said that he does not regret posting the rumors. "Rumors are part of the entertainment industry, and I am confident that our educated readers understand that rumors are nothing more than unconfirmed buzz."
Believe it or not, I agree with him.
Usually, this would be an open-and-shut case for an intrepid ombudsman like me. I would shame the site for reporting on rumors without doing adequete reporting. say they deserved what they got and call it a day. But TheDGN's rumor-mongering is unusual for a few reasons. Consider this quote from a DGN story:
"we cannot confirm the following"
and this one: "this information should be taken with a grain of salt"
and this: "TheDGN strongly believes these pictures are fake."
and this: "we cannot guarentee that these images are genuine"
Quotes like these are part of what puts TheDGN's articles into the realm of responsible rumor-mongering.
Milian explained in an e-mail that he is fully aware of the dubious nature of many of TheDGN's stories, and he wants the audience to be aware of it too. "If a rumor is posted, it is always tagged as such; we never try to pass something that hasn't been confirmed as truth," he said. "We will always tell our readers up front whether a story is unconfirmed right away in the article." You'd be surprised how often this bit of basic journalism gets ignored by major video game news sites
Milian also noted that TheDGN actively tried to verify the rumors, rather than just forgetting about them after the post. "David Allan, one of our writers, was actually the first to expose that the [Nov. 15 commerical] pictures were doctored. I had contacted two Microsoft representatives and Microsoft's marketing representative, and all reports of the commercial's existance came back inconclusive." TheDGN posted numerous updates to stories when new information revealed them to be false, another important responsibility for any news site that wants to post rumors.
The staff at TheDGN also used their common sense to guide their editorial judgment, Allen said. "We noticed immediately, before posting the screens of the hoax commercial, that certain things looked wrong, such as the ESRB logo looked out of place and that the '11.05' numbers were clearly ripped from a poster for the Matrix Revolutions. As such we mentioned in the news post that we strongly believed the screens to be fakes." Filtering rumors through your own perception like this is an excellent way to give the readers some added value over simply being a rumor-passing mouthpiece.
So, to quickly review, there are three main things a news site has to do to responsbily post a story based on a rumor:
Posts may slow down a bit as we head into the holiday (and final exam) season. I'll try to make it up to you readers in January, when winter break will free up my schedule.
Between Nov. 8 and Nov. 12, TheDGN posted eight seperate stories about potential Nov. 15 surprises. All of these stories (except for one refutation: Bungie's Speaks Out) were rumors based on questionable, if not totally baseless, evidence. The stories discussed such possibilities as a secret release of Halo 2, the shipping of Halo 2 promotional materials, and the release of "Halo Deluxe featuring online play."
Every one of the stories ended up being false. According to TheDGN Deputy Editor David Allen said the whole thing was a hoax, "deliberately created by several people, although they did not neccessarily work together."
TheDGN Editor Mark Milian said that he does not regret posting the rumors. "Rumors are part of the entertainment industry, and I am confident that our educated readers understand that rumors are nothing more than unconfirmed buzz."
Believe it or not, I agree with him.
Usually, this would be an open-and-shut case for an intrepid ombudsman like me. I would shame the site for reporting on rumors without doing adequete reporting. say they deserved what they got and call it a day. But TheDGN's rumor-mongering is unusual for a few reasons. Consider this quote from a DGN story:
"we cannot confirm the following"
and this one: "this information should be taken with a grain of salt"
and this: "TheDGN strongly believes these pictures are fake."
and this: "we cannot guarentee that these images are genuine"
Quotes like these are part of what puts TheDGN's articles into the realm of responsible rumor-mongering.
Milian explained in an e-mail that he is fully aware of the dubious nature of many of TheDGN's stories, and he wants the audience to be aware of it too. "If a rumor is posted, it is always tagged as such; we never try to pass something that hasn't been confirmed as truth," he said. "We will always tell our readers up front whether a story is unconfirmed right away in the article." You'd be surprised how often this bit of basic journalism gets ignored by major video game news sites
Milian also noted that TheDGN actively tried to verify the rumors, rather than just forgetting about them after the post. "David Allan, one of our writers, was actually the first to expose that the [Nov. 15 commerical] pictures were doctored. I had contacted two Microsoft representatives and Microsoft's marketing representative, and all reports of the commercial's existance came back inconclusive." TheDGN posted numerous updates to stories when new information revealed them to be false, another important responsibility for any news site that wants to post rumors.
The staff at TheDGN also used their common sense to guide their editorial judgment, Allen said. "We noticed immediately, before posting the screens of the hoax commercial, that certain things looked wrong, such as the ESRB logo looked out of place and that the '11.05' numbers were clearly ripped from a poster for the Matrix Revolutions. As such we mentioned in the news post that we strongly believed the screens to be fakes." Filtering rumors through your own perception like this is an excellent way to give the readers some added value over simply being a rumor-passing mouthpiece.
So, to quickly review, there are three main things a news site has to do to responsbily post a story based on a rumor:
- Clearly tell the audience that the story is unconfirmed.
- Keep reporting on the story and post updates when new facts come to light and...
- Use your editorial judgment to determine whether the story seems credible or not.
Posts may slow down a bit as we head into the holiday (and final exam) season. I'll try to make it up to you readers in January, when winter break will free up my schedule.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Some quick links
Hello readers. Today's post is actually going to look more like a normal blog post than a long-winded essay that just happens to be on blogspot. I hope you don't mind.
First off, I'll put my money where my mouth is and point you to my coverage of Nintendo's College Media Day for the Diamondback. Now you can see for yourself whether my intergrity has been irreperably corrupted by piles of free merchandise. For comparison, also check out the coverage by The Oregon Daily Emerald and The Duke Chronicle, both of which focus on the event more than my Mario Kart preview.
Secondly, I highly reccomend the movie Shattered Glass to anyone reading this blog. It's a great cautionary tale on the dangers of plagiarism for any journalist (or aspiring journalist), and it's a very well-made movie to boot. Don't wait for the video; catch it while it's still in theatres.
Don't get too used to this format: next on the docket is a breakdown of the Halo 2 rumors that were flying all over the place last week. Expect the same long-winded analysis that has either made you enjoy this blog or made you stop reading by now.
First off, I'll put my money where my mouth is and point you to my coverage of Nintendo's College Media Day for the Diamondback. Now you can see for yourself whether my intergrity has been irreperably corrupted by piles of free merchandise. For comparison, also check out the coverage by The Oregon Daily Emerald and The Duke Chronicle, both of which focus on the event more than my Mario Kart preview.
Secondly, I highly reccomend the movie Shattered Glass to anyone reading this blog. It's a great cautionary tale on the dangers of plagiarism for any journalist (or aspiring journalist), and it's a very well-made movie to boot. Don't wait for the video; catch it while it's still in theatres.
Don't get too used to this format: next on the docket is a breakdown of the Halo 2 rumors that were flying all over the place last week. Expect the same long-winded analysis that has either made you enjoy this blog or made you stop reading by now.
Saturday, November 8, 2003
The VG Ombudsman Gift Guide
No, that title doesn't mean I'll be telling you all what you should get for each other this holiday season (although I wouldn't mind an XBox if you're in the buying mood). Nope, this post is going to address how you should handle getting free stuff (like I got at Nintendo's recent College Media Day) without looking like a total sell-out.
As a foreword, please note that these are my personal views and rationalizations being put forth here. Some people may be much stricter than I am on this subject. Some more lax. Your moral code may vary. No guarantee of clear conscience is expressed or implied. No refunds after 90 days. etc...
That being said, I've divided "the guide" into a few sections, each of which I think should be treated differently. Let's start with:
Games/Consoles
This is probably the most important area of free stuff that video game journalists will encounter. It's also probably the trickiest to navigate. Some people get into this business for the sole purpose of being able to swim in large bins of free games and consoles. I know it might be hard for these people, but I highly reccomend that ou don't keep any games or consoles you didn't pay for.
The problem with taking ownership of a game you're given for free is that you are likely to judge it differently than a game you bought yourself or are just renting or borrowing. Regardless of how hard you try to remain objective, your mind automatically puts things that are free and that you plan to keep permanently in a different category with things that cost you money or that you are only keeping for a short time. It's much easier to say that a game you paid nothing for is worth owning than to say the same of a game you had to spend money on.
By agreeing not to keep of the game after you've reviewed it, you make it that much easier to be objective about it. You still didn't have to pay anything to play it, but you don't get any permanent value out of it (besides the opportunity to play and review it). By not keeping the game, it's easier to look at yourself as a detached observer rather than a game owner who has a vested interest in the game's quality. It will be easier for your readers to look at you this way too (and the perception of integrity you give your audience is just as important as the integrity you project on yourself).
What to do with the game after you're done reviewing it? Some newspapers and organizations will simply retain ownership of the discs, keeping them in their archives for future reference. Others give them away or sell them at fire sale prices to readers once a year (My college paper has a massive $1 per CD sale every May). If your paper or organization doesn't want to get involved, there are plenty of good charities that will take the games (I'll be giving my free Nintendo discs to Toys for Tots, personally.) Avoid the tempataion to sell the game to a consignment store; this will not only make you try to rush through the game to get the maximum secondhand value, but it may also give the game an artificial worth in your mind that it might not deserve.
Travel/Lodging
Another tricky one. In general, you have to weigh the importance of the event to your publication and your readers against the possibility of missing the event if you don't take the accomodations.
For example, let's say you live in San Diego and are asked to attend a lunch conference in Los Angeles. If you own a car, you can easily make it yourself, so there's no real risk of missing the event if you don't take a pre-paid flight that is offered by the conference holder. In this case, I would not take the travel accomodations and get there myself.
Let's instead say that you were expected to attend the same conference but had to travel from Massachusetts. Obviously, you can't simply drive there. First, see if your publication would be willing to pay for the travel costs. Ethically, this is usually the preferable solution over taking a free trip from a company you are supposed to be covering objectively, but many video game publications are not able to afford such luxuries.
Next, decide whether or not the expense of travel would be an undue burden for you to take on yourself. Be honest with yourself; if it's a $100 plane ticket and you will be making $500 for the article, it might be doable. If it's a $1,000 ticket and you are getting no money for the article, it might be unreasonable to expect you to pay your own way.
If you've gotten to this point, you have to judge whether the harm to your reputation from taking a free trip is greater than the harm to your readers by not covering the event. In most cases, the harm to your reputation won't be that great; most readers won't fault you for accepting a free trip to a corporate headquarters or a businesses press conference, for instance. If the trip is for a wild beach bash at a private Hawaiin villa, however, the perception may not be as rosy. The beach bash might not be as crucial a story for your readers as the press conference, either (even though it would probably be more fun for you, the journalist).
The best advice I can give here is to use your best judgement based on the facts of the trip.
Food/Drink
I'll divide this into two sub-categories: catered events for a large group and private meals with sources. In general, I feel you should accept free food at catered events and insist on paying when meeting privately with a source.
The main difference here is whether or not you are receiving preferential treatment (or perceived as receiving such). When you are at a large, catered event with many other journalists and/or businesspeople, you aren't being treated differently because of your stature as a journalist. Since everyone in the room is being given the same access to the food, your taking it doesn't set you apart. While it could be argued that accepting the food sets you apart from those journalists not invited to the event, you are often there to work the room and talk with as many people as poissible. Being sociable often involves accepting the offered food or drink to avoid looking rude. On the same token, though, don't stuff yourself with as much free food as you can stomach. Moderation in all things, of course.
With a private, one on one meal with a source, however, the situation is different. If you don't pay here, you are allowing the source to specifically attend to your needs and allow you to get off for free. Regardless of whether or not the source was trying (and/or succeeding) in currying your favor by paying, any outside observer will definitely get the perception be that you have been unduly influenced. If you insist on paying for yourself, you can still get the information you want from the source while keeping your integrity intact.
Clothes/Tchotchkes
Some very strict ethicists might refuse to accept things like an F-Zero T-shirt or a deck of Advance Wars 2 playing cards, but I am not among them. When I get a free T-shirt, all I'm thinking is that it's one less T-shirt I have to buy. I don't care about the comapny that paid for it, be it Nintendo, Mountain Dew, Reese's, Dell, etc. (I have shirts from all of these, BTW). Wearing an F-Zero shirt is unlikely to influence my impressions of the F-Zero game, even if it is a very high quality shirt.
The only exception to this policy is for official press events, such as E3, or other professional journalistic events. Wearing a free, company-sponsored T-shirt to these can come off as very unproffessional. Wearing them to work can similarly make you seem like a corporate shill to your co-workers (even if you aren't). Wait until your off day to enjoy the 100 percent cotton.
In the coming weeks I'll put together a synopsis of my impressions of how I was treated/handled by Nintendo's highly trained PR professionals. Until then, feel free to disagree with my rambling ethical rationalizations as much as you want in the comments thread.
As a foreword, please note that these are my personal views and rationalizations being put forth here. Some people may be much stricter than I am on this subject. Some more lax. Your moral code may vary. No guarantee of clear conscience is expressed or implied. No refunds after 90 days. etc...
That being said, I've divided "the guide" into a few sections, each of which I think should be treated differently. Let's start with:
Games/Consoles
This is probably the most important area of free stuff that video game journalists will encounter. It's also probably the trickiest to navigate. Some people get into this business for the sole purpose of being able to swim in large bins of free games and consoles. I know it might be hard for these people, but I highly reccomend that ou don't keep any games or consoles you didn't pay for.
The problem with taking ownership of a game you're given for free is that you are likely to judge it differently than a game you bought yourself or are just renting or borrowing. Regardless of how hard you try to remain objective, your mind automatically puts things that are free and that you plan to keep permanently in a different category with things that cost you money or that you are only keeping for a short time. It's much easier to say that a game you paid nothing for is worth owning than to say the same of a game you had to spend money on.
By agreeing not to keep of the game after you've reviewed it, you make it that much easier to be objective about it. You still didn't have to pay anything to play it, but you don't get any permanent value out of it (besides the opportunity to play and review it). By not keeping the game, it's easier to look at yourself as a detached observer rather than a game owner who has a vested interest in the game's quality. It will be easier for your readers to look at you this way too (and the perception of integrity you give your audience is just as important as the integrity you project on yourself).
What to do with the game after you're done reviewing it? Some newspapers and organizations will simply retain ownership of the discs, keeping them in their archives for future reference. Others give them away or sell them at fire sale prices to readers once a year (My college paper has a massive $1 per CD sale every May). If your paper or organization doesn't want to get involved, there are plenty of good charities that will take the games (I'll be giving my free Nintendo discs to Toys for Tots, personally.) Avoid the tempataion to sell the game to a consignment store; this will not only make you try to rush through the game to get the maximum secondhand value, but it may also give the game an artificial worth in your mind that it might not deserve.
Travel/Lodging
Another tricky one. In general, you have to weigh the importance of the event to your publication and your readers against the possibility of missing the event if you don't take the accomodations.
For example, let's say you live in San Diego and are asked to attend a lunch conference in Los Angeles. If you own a car, you can easily make it yourself, so there's no real risk of missing the event if you don't take a pre-paid flight that is offered by the conference holder. In this case, I would not take the travel accomodations and get there myself.
Let's instead say that you were expected to attend the same conference but had to travel from Massachusetts. Obviously, you can't simply drive there. First, see if your publication would be willing to pay for the travel costs. Ethically, this is usually the preferable solution over taking a free trip from a company you are supposed to be covering objectively, but many video game publications are not able to afford such luxuries.
Next, decide whether or not the expense of travel would be an undue burden for you to take on yourself. Be honest with yourself; if it's a $100 plane ticket and you will be making $500 for the article, it might be doable. If it's a $1,000 ticket and you are getting no money for the article, it might be unreasonable to expect you to pay your own way.
If you've gotten to this point, you have to judge whether the harm to your reputation from taking a free trip is greater than the harm to your readers by not covering the event. In most cases, the harm to your reputation won't be that great; most readers won't fault you for accepting a free trip to a corporate headquarters or a businesses press conference, for instance. If the trip is for a wild beach bash at a private Hawaiin villa, however, the perception may not be as rosy. The beach bash might not be as crucial a story for your readers as the press conference, either (even though it would probably be more fun for you, the journalist).
The best advice I can give here is to use your best judgement based on the facts of the trip.
Food/Drink
I'll divide this into two sub-categories: catered events for a large group and private meals with sources. In general, I feel you should accept free food at catered events and insist on paying when meeting privately with a source.
The main difference here is whether or not you are receiving preferential treatment (or perceived as receiving such). When you are at a large, catered event with many other journalists and/or businesspeople, you aren't being treated differently because of your stature as a journalist. Since everyone in the room is being given the same access to the food, your taking it doesn't set you apart. While it could be argued that accepting the food sets you apart from those journalists not invited to the event, you are often there to work the room and talk with as many people as poissible. Being sociable often involves accepting the offered food or drink to avoid looking rude. On the same token, though, don't stuff yourself with as much free food as you can stomach. Moderation in all things, of course.
With a private, one on one meal with a source, however, the situation is different. If you don't pay here, you are allowing the source to specifically attend to your needs and allow you to get off for free. Regardless of whether or not the source was trying (and/or succeeding) in currying your favor by paying, any outside observer will definitely get the perception be that you have been unduly influenced. If you insist on paying for yourself, you can still get the information you want from the source while keeping your integrity intact.
Clothes/Tchotchkes
Some very strict ethicists might refuse to accept things like an F-Zero T-shirt or a deck of Advance Wars 2 playing cards, but I am not among them. When I get a free T-shirt, all I'm thinking is that it's one less T-shirt I have to buy. I don't care about the comapny that paid for it, be it Nintendo, Mountain Dew, Reese's, Dell, etc. (I have shirts from all of these, BTW). Wearing an F-Zero shirt is unlikely to influence my impressions of the F-Zero game, even if it is a very high quality shirt.
The only exception to this policy is for official press events, such as E3, or other professional journalistic events. Wearing a free, company-sponsored T-shirt to these can come off as very unproffessional. Wearing them to work can similarly make you seem like a corporate shill to your co-workers (even if you aren't). Wait until your off day to enjoy the 100 percent cotton.
In the coming weeks I'll put together a synopsis of my impressions of how I was treated/handled by Nintendo's highly trained PR professionals. Until then, feel free to disagree with my rambling ethical rationalizations as much as you want in the comments thread.
Thursday, November 6, 2003
The best headlines ever!
Actually, that headline is a bit misleading. This is actually a post about a couple of misleading headlines (audience: Oh, I get it. I just love witty meta-humor.)
Just a quick recap: A headline is misleading if it states or implies something that is refuted or not stated in the article. Now, let's get to it.
The first example is from Chris Morris' usually excellent Game Over column. His latest column is headlined "No More Mario?" a question that clearly implies further questions such as: Huh? Why would Nintendo decide to abandon its mascot of over 20 years? Has Nintendo finally given in and made Pikachu its mascot?
Hold tight, Pokemon fans, because those who read the article will find that Nintendo senior vice president George Harrison simply said that there may not be another Mario game for the GameCube. Note that he didn't even say this was definite. Morris paraphrases Harrison: "While a new Mario game for the GameCube is still a possibility, it's definitely not certain." So the answer to the headline's question of "No More Mario?" turns out to be, "Maybe not on the GameCube," instead of the bombshell many no doubt expected based on the headline: "Yes, Nintendo is done with Mario."
To be fair, the sub-headline does clarify by saying that, "Nintendo's plumber may be through with the GameCube," but even on the column's index page, most people will probably miss this smaller text and simply click on the the large bold lettering asking if Mario is no more.
My second example headline isn't quite as strong, but contains an incorrect implication nonetheless. The GameSpot story, headlined "Game gimmick in Japan takes sales skyward" implies that some new technology or delivery method is doing well, possibly better than expected. Reading the full article, however, reveals that the gimmick of selling a flight simulator game to passengers on Japanese flights does not start until Nov. 11, six days after the article was published. Unless they're talking about pre-sales (which the article does not even hint at), it's hard to believe that sales of this unreleased product are going "skyward."
Now I appreciate a good pun as much as anybody else (possibly more) and I realize the author of this headline was probably only trying to highlight the airborne nature of this new delivery gimmick with the "skyward" reference. But as it currently stands, the headline has a dual implication that misrepresents what the story actually says. A new healine such as "News sales gimmick set to take off" or, "New sales gimmick prepares for liftoff," keeps the pun while more accurately representing the story.
Since the headline and the article are often written by two different people, it's not surprising that they occasionally do not match up. But this doesn't mean you don't have to be careful of the message you send to your readers through the headline. The headline is a reader's first and sometimes only impression of an article, and if those few words aren't completely accurate, it can totally alter the reader's understanding of the subject. Don't count on the sub-headline or a story blurb to clarify for you; make sure someone who only reads the headline would have an accurate perception of the article's content.
I know some of you are waiting for my promised post about accepting gifts, and I promise it will be up by the week's end. It takes awhile to develop an entire ethical framework, and I want to make sure I do it justice. Until then, dear readers.
Just a quick recap: A headline is misleading if it states or implies something that is refuted or not stated in the article. Now, let's get to it.
The first example is from Chris Morris' usually excellent Game Over column. His latest column is headlined "No More Mario?" a question that clearly implies further questions such as: Huh? Why would Nintendo decide to abandon its mascot of over 20 years? Has Nintendo finally given in and made Pikachu its mascot?
Hold tight, Pokemon fans, because those who read the article will find that Nintendo senior vice president George Harrison simply said that there may not be another Mario game for the GameCube. Note that he didn't even say this was definite. Morris paraphrases Harrison: "While a new Mario game for the GameCube is still a possibility, it's definitely not certain." So the answer to the headline's question of "No More Mario?" turns out to be, "Maybe not on the GameCube," instead of the bombshell many no doubt expected based on the headline: "Yes, Nintendo is done with Mario."
To be fair, the sub-headline does clarify by saying that, "Nintendo's plumber may be through with the GameCube," but even on the column's index page, most people will probably miss this smaller text and simply click on the the large bold lettering asking if Mario is no more.
My second example headline isn't quite as strong, but contains an incorrect implication nonetheless. The GameSpot story, headlined "Game gimmick in Japan takes sales skyward" implies that some new technology or delivery method is doing well, possibly better than expected. Reading the full article, however, reveals that the gimmick of selling a flight simulator game to passengers on Japanese flights does not start until Nov. 11, six days after the article was published. Unless they're talking about pre-sales (which the article does not even hint at), it's hard to believe that sales of this unreleased product are going "skyward."
Now I appreciate a good pun as much as anybody else (possibly more) and I realize the author of this headline was probably only trying to highlight the airborne nature of this new delivery gimmick with the "skyward" reference. But as it currently stands, the headline has a dual implication that misrepresents what the story actually says. A new healine such as "News sales gimmick set to take off" or, "New sales gimmick prepares for liftoff," keeps the pun while more accurately representing the story.
Since the headline and the article are often written by two different people, it's not surprising that they occasionally do not match up. But this doesn't mean you don't have to be careful of the message you send to your readers through the headline. The headline is a reader's first and sometimes only impression of an article, and if those few words aren't completely accurate, it can totally alter the reader's understanding of the subject. Don't count on the sub-headline or a story blurb to clarify for you; make sure someone who only reads the headline would have an accurate perception of the article's content.
I know some of you are waiting for my promised post about accepting gifts, and I promise it will be up by the week's end. It takes awhile to develop an entire ethical framework, and I want to make sure I do it justice. Until then, dear readers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)