Case in point: Yesterday a clueless media relations professional whom I do not know sent me an e-mail with the subject line: “I sent a poem to a wannabee crotchety old bitch.” He was alluding to my recent birthday post, in which I reflected on aging.

The comment this person attempted to append to that post — which I did not approve — was the poem When I am an old woman I shall wear purple. That was in itself a mistake, though not a fatal one. If ever there was an overused, reflexive cliche response to any woman who mentions aging in a positive light, that poem would be it.

So this PR guy e-mailed me to let me know he’d tried to post that comment. Here’s the start of his message, and where he really screwed up…

He wrote:

“Hello Amy. I don’t think I’ll ever get to put the word ‘bitch’ in a corporate email subject line ever again but happy birthday. I hope you like the purple dresses poem that I commented with on your blog. It has stuck fondly in my memory since I was 13 and while I probably won’t wear purple dresses when I’m older, I aspire to that living.

“Anyway, here’s a pitch with some findings further below…”

And he did, indeed, follow that intro with a PR pitch. The real reason he was contacting me was that he wanted me to write up for CNN.com (where I blog about mobile technology) a study that his company recently released.

What can I say, but: Ick! No! Not in a million years!

I bear no personal animosity toward this media relations rep. But his note squicked me so much that I think it’s worth offering as an example for what people should generally not do when reaching out to strangers in order to try to get them to do something for you.

What was wrong with his approach?

• Transparently slimy.I have no problem that he read a post on my personal blog that contained personal information. I wouldn’t have published that post if I hadn’t intended it to be public. However, using my personal disclosures as a basis to try to ingratiate himself, and then launch straight into a PR pitch, lacked finesse and forethought.
• Presumptuous.If he wanted to comment on my personal post — even with that cliche — fine. Other people who I don’t know commented on that birthday post, and I welcomed (and published) those responses. But it was presumptuous for him to assume that leaving a comment on my personal blog post actually created some kind of personal connection between us that might encourage me, more than otherwise, to use his pitch for a CNN.com story.Granted, I have sometimes struck up meaningful personal connections and friendships via blog comments, and sometimes these cross over with professional matters. This is a process that happens organically over time. Trying to engineer that in a single e-mail is a really bad idea.
• Inappropriate/rude. When I saw the word “bitch” in the subject line of an e-mail from a person with a male name whom I don’t know, I nearly deleted it as spam immediately. That’s not the kind of thing a man should ever say to a woman who doesn’t already know him and consider him a friend. Even if she recently used that word in a blog post. And especially if you’re trying to contact her for professional reasons. No matter what you do, that language just won’t look friendly or funny. Gender power dynamics suck, but they do exist. So it’s dumb to act like they don’t, especially when you’re trying to build bridges.

What could he have done instead? If he felt so moved, he could have left his blog comment. Really, that would have been fine. Cliche included.

Then if he wanted to pitch me, he should have sent me a separate e-mail that did not refer to his blog comment, and that did not use language which could easily be mistaken for a gender-based insult. From there, if I recognized his name, I might have noted or asked him about his blog comment. But it was inappropriate for him to draw this connection, since it implied that I should give his pitch special treatment in a professional decision.

There’s a huge fuzzy gray area between the personal and the professional realms, especially online. So I can understand why these missteps happen. Personally I think it’s futile (and fundamentally not credible) to try to separate the personal and professional spheres entirely. It’s better to blend them thoughtfully in a way that suits you. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since I got online way back in the early 90s.

Being ignorant of, or choosing to ignore, the emotionally and socially crucial distinction between personal and professional information (and how they might imply relationships and influence) leads to overstepping that can look invasive or offensive.

In light of this reality, it’s more important than ever for everyone (especially media pros of all kinds) to be aware that there is still a difference between personal and professional, and to use those different kinds of information mindfully in pursuit of your goals.

In my opinion, journalists should be equally mindful of this pitfall when scouring personal posts on blogs or social media in order to find sources to contact, especially regarding breaking news with deeply personal angles like a murder or arrest. If you want to use digital communication tools to build those kind of community connections, do that up front as much as possible.

If a journalist must approach someone they don’t know about a sensitive personal matter in order to cover a story, be very very sensitive to the personal/professional distinction. Don’t use their available personal info to ingratiate yourself by pretending to be their friend, or that you care for personal reasons, and then try to get them to give you the information for your story. That tactic can work, but it’s unethical and slimy. And from a practical standpoint, it can easily backfire in a way that not only thwarts your goals but undermines your personal and professional reputation in a very public, findable way.

I chose not to publish this PR guy’s name or employer because I really don’t want to smear him personally. He made a mistake, and this is a “teachable moment.” We can all move forward from that.

They must have heard murmurs of frustrations over their slowness in finalizing the HTML5 standards, and have came up with one of the most innovative ways to address it – by dropping the “5″ version and call it a “living standard”.

Read: HTML5 to Drop the “5“

This makes sense from a standards-management perspective, and I guess it’s less embarrassing…  But I think it might make it harder for people who aren’t hardcore insiders to track the kind of developments that make HTML5 interesting, especially for mobile web projects.

As a polyamorous person, I was rather tickled that this topic got such prominent play. I figured: Cool! There goes a chunk of the vocabulary gap!

If you haven’t heard the term, polyamory means being open to having more than one intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

Yes, I realize any new term sounds awkward until you get used to it. So: Get used to it. Because here’s what the vocabulary gap looks like to a poly person…

WHEN WORDS FAIL

Whenever the subject of relationships comes up, if I mention something that indicates I’m not monogamous, usually I see raised eyebrows. If I clarify that I’m poly, usually I get blank stares. Most people haven’t heard that word.

…Yes, moving to the Bay Area has helped ease that social awkwardness — but it’s still surprisingly common, even here.

Usually when people first hear the word polyamory, they immediately conflate it with infidelity, patriarchal polygamy, sex-focused swinging, or dysfunction. Occasionally they may already have some grasp of some aspects of polyamory — but rarely do they possess a vocabulary for it that’s not either exclusionary (“non-monogamous”), derisive (“promiscuous,” “cheating with permission,” or “can’t really commit”), or deliberately vague (“open”).

That’s not their fault. I don’t feel personally insulted by this vocabulary gap. But it is a problem.

Imagine if our language had no word for “female.” What if our only words for someone with a vagina were (at best) “not male” — or (at worst) “bitch,” “whore,” and “second-class citizen.”

That’s kinda what many poly people deal with. Prejudicial semi-invisibility gets old fast.

So whenever polyamory gets significant mainstream media coverage (such as this July 2009 Newsweek feature), I think it’s a good thing. Even if the coverage is poorly done, or flat-out negative.

Whenever the mainstream media mention polyamory, the vocabulary gap shrinks a little. That makes it just a bit easier for poly folk to participate in conversations that monogamous folk take for granted.

THE P-WORD AND THE EVIL EYE

There’s something else I’ve noticed when polyamory gets mentioned in conversations or publications: the immediate, reflexive, superstitious “evil-eye” reaction it commonly evokes.

Here’s what I mean. Often, when the P-word gets mentioned and explained — and even when people understand that it’s a valid and not inherently unstable or inferior option — it’s typical for them to immediately distance themselves verbally from polyamory.

It’s as if the very concept of polyamory has cooties. “It’s not something I would ever do!” and “Well, I guess that might work for some people, but not me!” are the most common evil-eye lines I hear.

And in writing, the P-word typically gets packaged in quotation marks, as if to insulate acceptable language from its contagion.

Then there are more blatant mock-shock evil eye reactions that blend panic and prurience, like this from today’s Toledo Blade’s Thin Slices blog:

“This week from the Boston Globe, a look at something called polyamory, which we find incredibly confusing and scary in the category of ‘That might be OK for other people, but not us.’ Interesting, though.”

This puzzles me. When you meet or hear about someone who’s gay, do you feel any pressing need to distance yourself from the concept? Must you reflexively blurt, “Well I’d certainly never be attracted to someone of the same sex, but…”

Or when Jews meet (or discuss) Christians, must they promptly declare, “Well, worshiping Jesus isn’t something I’d ever do, but…”

Seriously: Wouldn’t you consider that rude?

I’m just barely old enough to recall hearing some men say, “Well, having a career may be fine for some women, but my wife doesn’t need to work.” I’m also old enough to recall when such remarks became embarrassing, and stopped.

Generally I just chalk the evil eye reaction up to normal human instincts: fear of the unfamiliar, and fear of ostracism (via guilt-by-association). And I can understand that revealing and questioning any societal assumption is disorienting. You just want to get your feet back under you.

Adopting this mindset helps me to not snark back: “What, YOU can only have ONE intimate relationship at a time? Well, I guess that might work for SOME people… Sounds terribly limited and unrealistic to me, though. But to each their own, I guess…”

I hope the P-word evil eye is just a temporary linguistic quirk. Because it’s hard to talk with people who keep throwing up verbal fences.

…In the meantime, this old Jerry Seinfeld bit, “Not that there’s anything wrong with it,” helps me keep my sense of humor about the poly evil eye:

“Citizen journalism” is a clunky term that manages to be as open to interpretation as it is controversial. I tend to think of it this way:

Any effort by people who are not trained or employed as professional journalists to publish news or information based on original observation, research, inquiry, analysis or investigation.

Here’s what that can mean, more specifically…

CitJ can conceivably include anything from notes and quotes from a public meeting, to neighborhood happenings and trends, to an original analysis of a piece of proposed legislation, to a public discussion about conditions at local parks, to music and restaurant reviews, to podcast interviews with community leaders and characters, and much more.

…Yes, I know that’s very broad. But consider the diversity of journalistic (or tangentially journalistic) content typically offered by mainstream news outlets — this isn’t really that different.

Key concept: In journalism, the “ism” is more important than the “ist.” Journalism is a collection of practices that can be done by anyone — not just by a select few anointed by certain types of employers or degrees.

Anyone can commit an act of journalism. Remember: In the U.S. at least, journalists are not licensed by the state — for good reason. Journalists don’t merely serve or represent the public. They are part of the public.

IS IT ANY GOOD?

The work of citizen journalists often looks quite different from the kind of journalism you’d find in a daily paper. It tends to be more personal, often written in the first person. It generally doesn’t attempt to be comprehensive.

Quality is inconsistent. It may or may not attempt to be fair. Fact-checking and editorial oversight may be less than what you’d find in a newspaper — or it may be better, depending on the citizen journalist and the paper being compared. CitJ often mixes opinion with reporting.

Media pros often deride or dismiss citizen journalism as useless or even dangerous. Some — but not all — of those complaints have merit and are worth considering.

That said, in order to form your own opinion of citizen journalism it’s important to engage directly with it rather than simply ascribe to someone else’s opinion. The only way you’ll spot potential value is to keep an open mind, and keep your eyes open too.

WHO ARE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS?

Anyone can be a citizen journalist — seniors, students, PhD’s, homemakers, the homeless, immigrants, nuns, you name it.

The label “citizen journalist” is controversial, so many people who are doing citizen journalism as I described it don’t call themselves citizen journalists. Often they consider themselves simply bloggers, discussion leaders and participants, or vocal community members.

A lot of citizen journalism happens on sites and forums where citizen journalism is not the main focus. It just crops up as warranted. Therefore, any venue might occasionally offer some citizen journalism.

In 2007, J-Lab conducted a survey of sites that focus on hyperlocal citizen media/journalism. Their report indicates definite business potential: “Sites are set up as businesses, as non-profits or as ad hoc citizen ventures. In our survey, 139 respondents split evenly: Half described their sites as for-profit operations, and half non-profit. Among the profit-seekers are entrepreneurs inventing new kinds of media companies to tap user-generated news and information and to build revenue models based on local shopping, local search and online advertising.”

More commonly, however, people who commit acts of citizen journalism do so for free, simply because they want to. In my experience they’re generally passionate, curious people who enjoy conversation.

WHERE CAN YOU FIND CITJ?

Everywhere. I’m not kidding. Here’s a 2007 map Adam Glenn and I helped build for the Knight Citizen News Network that lists nearly 500 citizen journalism efforts in the US alone — and there are many more around the world.

In addition, citizen journalists can focus on issues, industries, or other non-geographic territory.

While many citizen journalists practice their craft on their own sites or podcasts, others opt to contribute content to community sites — including ones that are hosted and supported by news organizations. Also, news organizations are increasingly soliciting stories, photos, and other news-related content from their audiences.

DOES CITJ MATTER?

That depends. For hyperlocal community news, yes, citizen journalists are becoming a major force in many places — especially in places that the mainstream media tend to overlook.

For other types of news and analysis, how much a citizen journalist (or citJ venue) matters depends on the people involved — especially their personal level of dedication, expertise, and sense of ethics and responsibility. It’s a really mixed bag.

Happenstance also comes into play. A person on the spot of a major news event who’s got a cell phone camera and a Flickr account can make history.

…That’s a very basic introduction to the field, from one person’s perspective. Please tell me what you think and what you’d add or change, below.

Ditto for the terms “new media” and even “online media”, which imply that channels other than print and broadcast are somehow separate or niche.

The best take on why it’s important to update and integrate assumptions about the nature of media (and how that affects news) is shown in this hilarious skit from Landline.TV:

Here’s where media is at today: In the current integrated media ecosystem, every print and broadcast organization has an Internet and mobile presence — and most of these now go beyond bare “shovelware”. Also, more and more of these organizations are distributing their content online first, making print and broadcast secondary channels (if not secondary markets). In contrast, most media outlets and public discussion venues that began life on the Internet do not have a print or broadcast presence. These vastly outnumber print and broadcast media outlets.

Consequently, when you consider the number and diversity of media outlets, print and broadcast media have become the exception — not the rule…

So it probably makes sense to start assuming that the umbrella term “media” now includes things like the Web, podcasting, and text messaging. This is the new default. It also probably makes more sense now to call special attention to “print media” or “broadcast media” by using those terms than it does to refer to “multimedia”, “online media”, or “new media”.

This is not a superficial matter of trendiness (which terms are “in” and “out”). Rather, it’s about updating default assumptions about what media is and how it works.

Viewing integration and distribution via multiple channels and content types as the norm, and specifying specifics as needed, is probably more useful and practical to anyone involved with making media these days. Reframing the issue in your head this way can constructively influence editorial and journalistic decisions, media business opportunities, and more.

I tweeted to ask whether I am the only person who thinks “multimedia” now sounds retro, and I got some interesting and fun responses:

• Perry Hewitt: “Multimedia is beginning to sounds 90s like multipurpose room sounds 70s.”
• Mark Gammon: “Funny, I had just thought that about multimedia a few days ago. Its day in the sun is waning for sure.”
• David Stanton: “Absolutely. I really don’t like the term ‘multimedia’. Completely uninformative.”
• Mary Maher: “No you’re not. And I’m thinking ‘new media’ and ’2.0′ aren’t so right either…”
• Joey Baker: “I’d gladly welcome a better term than ‘new media’ — got one?” (This triggered a fun conversation.)
• Mactavish: “I remember our ‘multimedia’ library in seventh grade — books, tapes, LPs, and little filmstrip thingies!”
• Daniel Bachhuber: “Ditto ‘online journalism’.”

(Thanks to David Cohn for the tip on the video.)

(Thanks to Michael Kirk for the tip.)

Thanks to Terence Hoaglund for the tip!

Michelle Nicolosi of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and I are co-chairing a panel at 5pm Pacific. It’s called “It’s a Conversation, Stupid: Blogs, Wikis, Social Networking, UGC meet Journalism.”

UGC…. UGH!!!!! I loathe the term “user generated content.” It smacks of mechanism, hierarchy, and just plain condescension.Unfortunately it’s common among mainstream-media types, and you can bet I’ll have something to say about that! Like: Why don’t we just call it “contributed content?”

…Ahem… Anyway, this is part of an intriguing seminar at the Knight New Digital Media Center. (because “new media” ain’t new anymore) called Journalism in a 24/7 World: Decision-making for the Online Editor. Tonight’s event is offered in partnership with the Online News Association. If you go to this page at 5pm Pacific, you’ll find a live link to the webcast.

You also can submit questions during the event via this form. I’ll ask them on your behalf during the event as time permits. No softballs, folks!

Here’s the official blurb for the event:

“What happens when the audience becomes content producer on the nation’s top news web sites? Do you ‘moderate’ or let ‘er rip? How do journalism values and standards survive a User Generated Content world? Hear how USAToday.com and USA Today executive editor Kinsey Wilson, Yahoo! News editor in chief Neil Budde and CNN.com vice president and senior producer Mitch Gelman are opening their web sites to their audiences as never before. Get a chance to weigh in from your cell phone and laptop as Newsvine CEO Mike Davidson paints the future of collaborative journalism. Moderators will be Michelle Nicolosi, assistant managing editor for interactive at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Amy Gahran, conversational media consultant and editor of Poynter Institute’s E-Media Tidbits.”

Hope to see some Contentious readers there. Please say hi!

I’m trying out Jott, a free service that transforms short (30-seconds or less) phone messages into text, sent by e-mail or SMS to you or whoever you choose. This fits in with my overall strategy of managing all my tasks through e-mail. (Yes, GTDinbox is still rocking my world.)

I’m using it not only to send reminder notes to myself when I’m away from my computer, but also to send quick messages to my husband. As I was cooking lunch a short while ago, I grabbed my phone to send him a reminder to get a couple boxes of cat litter.

Here’s what he received:

“Hey dude, we are out of cattle eater and that we need some. Could you pick some up today and bring it over, two or three baskets of it. Thanks.”

Well, needless to say, the local Safeway probably doesn’t carry much “cattle eater,” and certainly not in baskets. But he did figure it out and we both had a good laugh. Such is life when you rely on automated transcription as a communication tool. I’ve had fun with this before, especially with Babelfish.

I’ve heard that some people use Jott as a microblogging tool. That is, you can jot to an e-mail address, and several popular blogging tools allow you to post by e-mail. I was thinking of trying that too, just to see how it work. So if you see any requests for “cattle eater” or other cryptic items here, you’ll know what’s up.

What are your favorite Jotts or other autotranslations gone awry? Please comment below.