How to be a Successful Blogger (by breaking all the rules)

Know the 'rules' of blogging before you start, they say. There are steps to successful blogging. I know these 'rules', and I follow a lot of them, just not at the same time.

Most of the time I'm breaking the rules.

And there are very good reasons for breaking the rules of blogging, both in corporate and personal/lifestyle blogging. It really depends on your goals.

I tend not to define myself as a 'blogger' because blogging is just one part of what I do, both personally and professionally. Here I am, blogging, but this blog here is not my career, it's not my business, and it's not my entire lifestyle. And yet this blog has been hugely successful - by my own terms!

So here are some 'rules' of blogging that I know I break, and why I break them:

Broken Rule # 1: (Don't) Find a Niche and Stick to it

Personally: I'm an expat, millennial, career-changing digital native, and for a long time I couldn't decide how to narrow my niche. I love the differences between American and UK cultures but I didn't want a pure expat blog. The blogs I read on a daily basis cover a broad range of interests, and rarely overlap. So for 2014 I'm picking three themes and running with them: Building (and re-building) a career as a millennial, blogging/marketing, and my expat life. They're not as distinct as they might seem and I have several blog posts planned that fit into more than one theme.

So if you can't choose a specific niche, or don't want to be pigeonholed, don't choose a niche! Try picking a few key themes that interest you, and you'll soon work out how they can tie together into one overall brand.

Broken Rule # 2: (Don't) Share your Blog Posts all over Social Media

You've written a snappy, relevant, or thought-provoking post and you want to share it with the world. But stop: Where are you going to share it, and when?

Don't feel like you should just blast it all over every social account you have. Use your social accounts wisely and mindfully. Twitter is the place to craft an irresistible headline or two and share throughout the day. Pinterest and Facebook both drive traffic with visual content, but at opposite times of the day. And sometimes more is not always better - too much can be less effective than not enough.

For every post you craft, determine the best social accounts to share on. This works equally for personal and corporate blogging, especially when you're clear on what you want to achieve - whether it's traffic, sales, or shares.

Broken Rule # 3: (Don't) Be an Expert

Sometimes the most interesting blogs are about people learning their way. Whether it's a new mom, a new blogger, a new lawyer, a new fashionista, or someone who's in a new country, sharing first-time experiences can be more genuine and engaging than advice from thought-leaders. And that goes for pictures too - photos from 'behind the scenes' give a fascinating insight. 

Unpolished: Behind the scenes. NOT what I wear professionally!

Don't forget that blogging is allowed to be immediate and a bit unpolished! That includes, writing, photography, your outfit, your baby - whatever. Some personal blogs look professional, and some professional blogs look homespun. And that's totally ok. Life's like that, so go with it. Share what you don't know, as well as what you do.

Broken Rule # 4: (Don't) Break all the Rules

Read all the 'rules' of blogging that you can find, and read all the rulebreakers (ahem). Then decide what you need to do. Knowing how and why tricks and tactics work in social media and blogging helps you to discover what works for you.

So the one rule I recommend you do follow is to set out a goal for your blog. Even if you've been blogging for ages. And when you achieve that goal or your goal eventually changes, take a step back and re-evaluate, because your tactics will alter depending on what you want to achieve.

Some people like sharing memes and pictures, some people like essays and ideas, some like a mixture of both. Some people want to sell products, others want to build an audience, and others still just want to explore and have fun whether anyone's reading or not. Catch-all rules or rule-breaking won't work for every blog the same way.

Broken Rule # 5: (Don't) Define Success According to Others

And finally, remember that everyone does have a different goal. Me? I'm not a fashion blogger, so I don't do outfit posts, even though I tried them. I'm not into giveaways or sponsorships, even though I tried them and they absolutely work. They're 'rules' I don't want to follow. 

I don't blog every day, I don't have a huge readership, and I feel successful. 

I've met some fun people, switched careers, learned and expanded skills. I get to test ideas at 'play' in my personal blogspace, on projects with no real deadline and no real purpose, then test ideas out at work. 

So here's how I'm defining my (personal) blogging success this year: I'm going to take my three themes, and try to create a cohesive personal brand. Even if my brand is millennial expat career-changing digital native!

What blogging rules do you follow? Which ones do you break? How do you define your blogging success?

Stuff wot I brought with me 5 - Journalism textbooks

Studying for the NCTJ distance diploma in journalism is no mean feat!

After working for an innovation agency, attending the Edinburgh International TV Festival trainee scheme, and doing a stint on a BBC consumer news show, I registered to study towards a diploma in journalism. I think journalism skills are going to be vital for the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. They should be taught in every high school.

I fully appreciate that journalism is a tough industry. But despite cut-backs and job losses (such as those initiated by the Philly Inquirer),  the shut-down of many local papers in the UK and the USA,  and the revelations of the unethical 'phone hacking' culture at certain papers in the UK, I don't think it's a dying industry. It's changing. Completing the diploma will qualify me a journalist, but I think there's so much more to modern journalism than shorthand and reporting style. With the growing influence of the internet in our lives there are opportunities to re-shape how people get their information and news, and to re-shape how media businesses get revenue.

That's why I also think programming skills are going to be vital for the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. At the age of 11 I taught myself HTML and made some zany Geocities sites from scratch. This year I've slowly been working through the Code Year modules, especially in CSS, to brush up my skills. I'm creating my own DIY course in modern journalism skills!

I love to keep tabs on innovations in news, media and community journalism. I love to follow community journalists, journo-bloggers, media analysts and academics on Twitter. Homicide Watch is a really interesting new model for crime reporting in DC and Clear Health Costs is a brilliant initiative set up by journalist-entrepreneurs to help Americans analyze the costs of healthcare options, to name but two exciting examples of new journalism ventures.

My diploma is all long-distance home study, so I was sent a box full of books and I've been working my merry way at them, amongst moving to another continent and spending catch-up time with my hubby. I knew there'd be a time for adjustment to my new country, and doing this has been great for focusing my time while I search for jobs and opportunities. It's tough work though, especially when I don't have class-mates to keep me motivated or to bounce ideas around with and share insights. If you see me on Twitter or like my little blog here, please do send me some words of encouragement!

Oh, and if you love new media as much as I do, I'd love, love to chat to you! Follow me on Twitter or visit my other site where I'm going to try to focus my media blogging in future. And if you don't love new media as much as I do, don't worry, you know I love trashy TV too, and all the new US shows are coming to screen soon.

Are you learning any new skills? What do you think is the future of journalism? And have you been doing Code Year too? I'd love to hear from you!

Watching the London Olympics in the USA: Part Two

I'm very used to commercials on US television. I have seen TV shows cut down to fit more commercials in. This is most visible when commercial US providers struggle with ad-free offerings from the BBC. I've seen whole interviews cut from episodes of Top Gear. I've even seen commercials cut down to fit in more commercials: There's one about a sagging couch screened occasionally and I've never actually seen the end of it so I don't even know what it's advertising.

Television is an industry and a public service. Sometimes these elements are combined (see the UK's Channel 4), sometimes they are separated (compare the UK's BBC, the USA's PBS and every commercial channel out there). On NBC, commercials during the London Olympic Ceremony were expected, and even okay, even if they did disrupt the flow of the performance.

NBC defended its editing of the ceremony before it was broadcast, on tape delay, with commercials and NBC commentary. In and of itself, these things are probably okay, even if they did disrupt the flow of the performance.  Even if it's an out-dated approach to global event media, and even if NBC was live-Tweeting the very ceremony it wasn't broadcasting anywhere live (yes, really).

The commentary during the performance has already been much maligned, and truthfully I tried to ignore it as I enjoyed the performance. "The only commentary should be understated and sarcastic" I said, recalling UK efforts in Eurovision commentary. For Mark's American parents, who are more used to the NBC commentators on every day news, it was a source of irritation. "Shut up Matt, shut up Vieira" they cried at frequent intervals, especially as the commentators spoke over the venue's own announcer. I didn't know at the time that #shutupmattlauer was trending on Twitter.

But the next day, when I read criticisms that the performance felt disjointed and incoherent, I got the feeling that this was not due to the ceremony itself, but rather the way it was broadcast. And that's disappointing. Of course I felt very protective of the British ceremony, but broadcasting should enhance, not take away, from an experience. When #nbcfail was also trending on Twitter, it became apparent that the online community did not think the broadcast was enhancing much at all.

--- Here are the six ways NBC blew their Olympic coverage, and the six most cringeworthy moments of their broadcast.

As a Brit it is hard not to be personally offended by NBC's decision to remove the touching Abide with Me element of the ceremony. Moreso because the UK commentary recalled the 7/7 London bombings, which happened the day after the announcement that London would be venue for the 2012 Olympics. But the section was supposed to be more than that; it was a poignant memorial for "those who are absent". The London 2012 Ceremony Guide states:

Spectators have been invited to present images of loved ones who couldn’t be with us tonight. In a moving moment, those who are absent from us are digitally present.

Terrorism in any guise is deplorable, and this element allowed for a beautiful moment of reflection for all nations during the celebration, as NBC's Bob Costas had already planned to do in his commentary, for the 1972 incident. Deadspin has covered the missing memorial, stating that it's a "mystery" why the section was cut. NBC defended its decision post facto, saying their edit was for US audiences.

But I've been following the #nbcfail comments and commentary. US audiences are not happy, and not just this oversensitive displaced Brit. Audiences who pay for cable TV, who want to watch live online and on TV, and in any multimedia way that suits them best: They aren't happy and they want more. They want prime time repeats and round-ups after the event, sure, but they also want unedited footage at the point of action (of both ceremony and sports). And if that's not what these audiences are getting they're all too happy to publicly declare that they'll use any means possible (legal or otherwise) to get the multimedia product they desire.

Good business would suggest that NBC should please its audience and give viewers what they want. NBC says it carried out market research that said people preferred prime time round-ups. Business focus groups are rarely as broad or wide as the opportunity to gauge public opinion that Twitter provides. Focus groups for example are expensive. They are comprised of what, up to twenty paid contributors, many of whom make a career of going to focus groups? Twitter is spontaneous, open, free, and offers up to 500m opinions. I've noticed that the trending theme is no longer #nbcfail but #NBC, and that NBC accounts are more frequently retweeting positive comments. I'm not sure what these mean, but it suggests an acknowledgement by NBC of the online ruckus. Maybe they are worried after all.

I hear the BBC coverage is fantastic, I know the Guardian's Olympics website is brilliant.  But the BBC is publicly funded by the UK taxpayer, and the Guardian is struggling with its digital income models (I know because I went to their Open Weekend event and talked it out with them). As summed up by Jeff Jarvis, maybe the BBC "superserves" its audiences because they pay the bill. NBC serves advertisers because they pay the bill. Jarvis says he doesn't buy that argument.

The key thing, though, is that NBC hasn't failed. They've got the exclusive contract to show the games, and they've got the ratings (and apparently Business Insider is happy too). And maybe the model for profiting from multimedia sports coverage just hasn't quite been refined. Maybe sticking with an old familiar model is safest and most profitable (even if it garners complaints, as the NBC model did in 2010 as well).

NBC has the contract for the Olympics until 2020 I believe, so until then I'll stop being an offended Brit, and continue to be a fascinated media scholar.

So, just for fun, to cast the cat amongst the pigeons, it'd be interesting to imagine what Google, the company which traditional broadcasters fear, would do with the rights to such an event. I can only imagine that'd be a multimedia spectacle with an innovative income generation business model.…What do you think?

If you'd like to read other expats' opinions of the NBC spectacle, I recommend Expat Mum, and LOTS. Both have excellent blogs generally, and both have also covered this strange experience of watching the homeland's shining moment from another country's perspective.

Commenting on Commentary

I'm sitting on the bus to the Political Innovation Camp in Edinburgh, and while I rarely blog in 'real time' I thought it'd be worth drafting some thoughts about citizen journalism and political commentary. I already introduced some ideas in a couple of posts below, but some interesting things have happened in these spheres in the past week that give some food for thought.

The first was Keith Olbermann's very temporary 'indefinite' suspension from MSNBC and his show Countdown over some undisclosed political donations. The donations are neither here nor there, but it was an interesting turn of events for a few reasons. First, the rally of support for Keith that manifested so rapidly over, of course, the Internet. Second, MSNBC's ability to spin the incident as demonstrable proof that the cable network is somehow more responsible and less overtly partisan or activist than Fox news. Third was Meghan McCain (daughter of Arizona Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain) defending Olbermann on account of his being a commentator, and not a journalist.

There are blurry distinctions between journalism and commentary, between bona fide media formats and citizen journalism/commentary. As I asserted before there are nuances in the codes and grammar of each, and also in the expectation the reader or viewer garners from each medium. There are some rules that all must adhere to, such as regarding libel, copyright, plagiarism, confidentiality, etc. But it'll be interesting to have discussions about how commentary and blogging is currently perceived and how it can be used.

The other events concern twitter tags such as #twitterjoketrial and #iamspartacus. Over on this side of the ocean we've seen instances of social media 'commentary' (jokes and flippant comments) becoming issues of a legal matter, but more so, issues of action. I'm sure plenty of media fans and politicos are watching these two Twitter tags with many levels of interest, as they add a different, slightly more alarming, facet to this conversation on commentary, blogging and connectivity.

Memes on the Brain: a braindump

I wrote my undergrad dissertation on Snakes on a Plane. The movie. The movie with Samuel L Jackson, a plane, and a bunch of snakes.

(Incidentally, if anyone cares, I did my postgrad dissertation on the concept of 'ethical power' and the EU's neighbourhood policy. I wrote both dissertations in all seriousness.)

I was pre-warned by my undergrad supervisor that I was taking a risk with the subject matter.

For info, here's how it went, in ten summary steps:

1. Some movies and TV shows are classified as 'cult'.
2. Cult movies/TV shows can be made to be cult or are 'discovered' by fans as cult.
3. Cult fans are not just consumers, but can sometimes be involved in changing the text of their revered show/movie (usually a show with more than one instalment).
4. Cult fans are also productive, by making fanfiction, fan magazines, mash-up videos/songs, merchandise, spin-offs. etc.
5. Cult fans also create a 'shadow text' (a term coined by Matt Hills) by providing commentary on their favourite show/movie (again, usually a show with more than one instalment).
6. Fans are hierarchical - those who produce fanfiction, sell merchandise, or those who comment quickest and most often are alpha fans.
7. The increase in popular use of the internet makes it quicker and easier for fans to comment and be productive and hierarchical.
8. All of the above happened with Snakes on a Plane. Only it happened before the movie was released.
9. The movie was not very successful. Fan activity died down after the movie came out...
10. Therefore Snakes on a Plane was and is not a cult movie. It was an internet fad, exacerbated by the stupid name and premise of the movie, and also in the timely increase in popular use of the internet, and namely the creation of and popularisation of YouTube. Without those elements it would probably not have been an internet fad (or fad, stupid).

I see this happening more and more. And not just with movies, but anything that becomes an internet fad. Or meme. And how they spread across the internet is simply fascinating; Susan Blackmore touches on it here in her TED talk on memes and temes. It's all the more impressive when most of the colloquial terms on the internet are coined on the same site (which, incidentally, celebrated its 7th birthday recently), and then regurgitated on two more sites, that is, Facebook/Twitter.

An IT friend once described the expediency/timeframe of various social media platforms as such: blogging is slow, Tumblr is faster, Facebook is faster still, and Twitter is fastest, being almost instantaneous. YouTube fits somewhere in the middle.

Of course, not only does slang or movie hype travel quickly, but so does news and current affairs, which should be no surprise to anyone. With all these various platforms available to us, with grassroots commentary on news as it happens, we have instant 'shadow texts' on every facet of the outside world.

In Matt Hills' film theory, 'shadow texts' are interesting pieces of literature (for want of a better word) created by fan commentary, perpetuated by what is happening on screen, between episodes, and so on. In the UK, X Factor is one of the best examples of this happening, oh so easily tracked on Twitter whenever it broadcasts. In fact, finding 'shadow texts' is so much easier since the dawn of Twitter, but you find them on forums and Facebook and in fan magazines as well.

Additionally, we have important instances of grassroots commentary on current affairs, such as the famous 'Iranian Twitter Revolution', or the people who tweeted in real time as they attempted to vote in the UK general election only to discover, first, huge lines (sorry, queues), and then eventually that the doors were closed on them as 10pm struck and they were denied their vote.

In Mexico, 'social media' is getting through censorship, and the story of the 'narco-blogger' was seized upon by journalists as an important example of social media activism and reporting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38684639/
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/journalists-silenced-mysterious-blogger-reports-mexico’s-drug-violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/aug/17/press-freedom-mexico
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/43152/

If you haven't already read Malcolm Gladwell's article about online activism (where have you been?), then it's certainly worth a thorough read.

It's been doing the rounds on Twitter and the like, along with a torrent of responses:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/02/malcolm-gladwell-social-networking-kashmir
http://www.markpack.org.uk/malcolm-gladwell-social-networking/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit
http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=19008

Are just a few of them...

This is an aside though, as I'm not talking necessarily about political activism here, although these are interesting and pertinent stories to follow and respond to and debate. The rapid spread of ideas and commentary certainly carries some of the same themes as online calls to activism, and indeed can work hand in hand, both in theory and in practice - does it make a difference if it's political or creative or pointless?

On Friday the Facebook movie, The Social Network, is released in the UK. This is fascinating to me simply because it's kind of meta: I wrote about how online social networking can affect a movie, and here's the ultimate movie affected by online social networking, because it's about its very inception on the modern internet.

Fellow tweeter and blogger Miss America made this comment that made me giggle:

@missamerica_: Think they'll make a Twitter movie next? Imagine how confusing it'll be with 140 characters.

To which another fellow tweeter and blogger responded with this amazing precis for a Twitter movie, and whatdyaknow, somebody already made a trailer. All you need is Sam J, and you've a fully-fledged, unstoppable, round the world, instant internet meme with B-Movie to match. Get to it New Line Cinema! Let's see if this time round the power of the interwebz can get active enough to create a whole movie, rather than just add some extra lines of obscene dialogue.

But maybe that doesn't need to happen. Gladwell's article has sparked a number of debates, and one of those is about hierarchies on the internet. The internet is used by everyone for news and marketing. The story is no longer under control, whether it's a case of adding more snakes and the phrase "motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane" or telling the truth about drugs in Mexico or rebutting a large corporation's PR campaigns/disaster management skills, 'ordinary people' are responding quicker than ever and getting more exposure than ever.

It's not the case that it could only happen with the internet - we've already had comedy stand-up shows and improv and art and Soviet samizdats (which literally means 'self-published') and Czechoslovakia's Charter 77 group prior to the collapse of Communism. But there is a torrent of it, and it's constant, and it's global (almost - the point in Gladwell's article about Iran and lazy journos reading only english commentary comes to mind here, and firewalls restrict access to certain people, but the reach of a well constructed, well timed, well publicised tweet or blog or youtube video is far wider than a xeroxed samizdat). People are people, but the internet magnifies and accelerates these 'shadow texts'.

So when I think about Snakes on a Plane now, which in internet terms is ancient history (going by the speed of the spread of information, not the length of time the internet has existed - Confused.com ads would have us believe it was invented in 2001, not the 1970s), the length of fad and the variety were still impressive for such a daft movie. It had an end point though, when the movie came out, which I addressed in my original essay as the main failing of the movie's hype. (What if it had it never been released?! How long would the hype have been maintained? Does anyone still Rickroll? Would it be better if a Twitter movie was mooted and never came out?) I received a mediocre grade for my dissertation in the end, unsurprisingly, but I still stand by it as an interesting piece of work. A piece of work that could be built upon proper and probably has, though admittedly maybe not with Snakes on a Plane as a case study.

Debating debates

I spoke of my but three hats before. On this important day of potential sea change and tide shift, let me throw some more hats into the ring.

One of the most entertaining things about this election has been the debates. Correction: One of the most entertaining things about this election has been reading Twitter during the debates, an endless stream of witty oneliners from friends, alternative stats from 63336, and poll listings from Tweetminster. Almost as interesting were the partisan tweeters; each declaring their own party as a winner, although these were amusing for a different reason.

The 'winner' of the debates became as moot as the issues being debated themselves. The after match analysis was a similar affair on television to Twitter - William Hague congratulating Cameron, Cable commending Clegg, Balls bravoing Brown. I would have loved, loved if they had shaken it up a bit! If one had acknowledged the strength of another, if one had admitted a particular slip-up or failing of their peer. It would have made for almost shockingly frank discussion. Of course I more than understand the nature of party politics, but the commentary would be a bit more progressive if it was somehow edgier. It would hold more purpose. And entertainment, for sure!

On a similar topic, there are plenty of partisan blogs, and some of them are very good. They cover a wide range of subjects and party issues and are constantly updated. Guardian did a good round up of the party interwebz efforts. Tweetminster does a fantastic job of following all the MPs and party candidates across the political spectrum. I follow a wide range of them, but unsurprisingly often none of them are particularly revealing and their tweet stances are predictable.

Our national newspapers offer a cornucopia of views, and most of them have endorsed a party, as is their absolute right to do so, but it would be good to hear/read their real motives. The most stimulating justification for support was outlined by the Economist, and that was even based on politics rather than hyperbole and self-interest (or so I would like to believe from a publication that aims to progress intelligence...)

So what's the other option? Our BBC bastion is required to be neutral, and give a certain amount of coverage to all sides (though Murdoch would surmise that it has a left-wing bias). However, because of its mandate towards its license payers, it plays safe rather than cover all the views in a truly cutting coverage. Does this stifle good debate or risque discussion? Paxman excluded of course. And perhaps John Humphrys. But they both take the role of the 'cynical general public' and partisanship is not often seen from commentators on the BBC, only from the candidates themselves. A room full of Paxmen and Humphrys left to their own, real opinionated devices could make for brilliant television.

If you let me cross the pond for a moment of digression, political debate pundits in the USA are a different breed and approach the notion of spreading political information in a totally different manner. My personal favourites are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. They provide what can only be described as full-on infotainment, and get away with much more commentary and bias than the BBC would probably allow, and possibly even the commercial channels, and can put forward criticism and ideas that political candidates themselves can't get away with.

The problem is when all of this political commentary and information leads to misinformation. When media machines and individuals execute themselves in wholly irresponsible manners. It is damaging and it is dangerous.

Sometimes they come across as stereotypes of themselves. Olbermann fights a relentless vitriolic verbal war against the likes of Hannity, Beck, Bachmann, Coulter and Limbaugh, which has recently extended onto his Twitter feed ... and we are back with the partisan problem. Then it becomes less about the discussion of ideas and more about point-scoring against the other team. Again I worry that this becomes damaging towards the 'info' element of the broadcasting, verging on self-serving, self-congratulating and alienating the undecideds or floating voters. I suppose the British equivalents could be the Daily Mail... and the Guardian?

Incidentally, it may be that we'll see Sarah Palin go this way. While I haven't read 'Going Rogue' I'll hazard that it will be a different kind of manifesto than 'Audacity of Hope' - Palin could reasonably expect to make a lot of money from doing the speaking n' signing route rather than public office, and she'd get the bonus of being able to say whatever the hell she likes. As a commentator she'd have no mandate to hold up, answering to no call but her own, and the occasional sling of insults from Olbermann, which she gets already.

And that's all very well, for them to become an aggressive evangelist for an issue or cause in which they feel passionately and expert in is almost admirable, regardless of whether they are a commentator or fully in the political ring as a candidate or representative. But becoming an ardent spokesperon for a certain side can slightly marr their credentials (whoever would have though Olbermann and Palin could be lumped together like that?!). And this is the crux of the problem of the politics of misinformation. If only hardcore conservatives follow the likes of Palin or Beck (or, again, the Daily Mail), and only hardcore liberals follow the likes of Olbermann and Maddow (or, again, the Guardian), there is never anything new to learn from or teach the moderates stuck in the middle of them.

The moderates are our floating voters who haven't decided on their own political voice amongst the chattering and twittering political classes. For those of us who have - the party members, the candidates, the papers, the media outlets and the political evangelists, there rests a delicate responsibility to these undecideds, whether avid political readers, pub politicians, or vaguely disinterested polling card carriers. The responsibility is to offer a fair fight, and a genuine (and interesting) representation of the issues.

Is this at all possible amongst the melee of voices? Cathy Newman fills a niche quite well with her election 'fact check' blog. Entertaining as well as somewhat purposeful.

But after all these 'hats', the other voice would be an academic blog. And let's be honest, that'd be bloody boring.

So I'll leave you with just a few more points to chew on. Charlie Brooker pretty much hits the mark for lolitics during this campaign. And with a beautiful balance of cynicism, but not so much to self-righteously announce that he's too above voting. Nothing irks a political geek more than a tacit consenter with a chip on their shoulder. Well done Brooker.

And finally, Stephen Fry's compelling blog piece. After weeks of coquettish smatterings of hints on Twitter of who he might support, I had to wonder if he knew just what power he was wielding in those 140 characters. 140 characters and 1.5 million people. I supposed he would know, and hoped he knew the level of 'delicate responsibility' that would also hang on those 140 characters. And he did not fail to deliver to me such a beautiful poliloquy to make me proud. It carries what I would wish to articulate, though more wonderful, vulnerable, and (thankfully) to a much larger audience.

And that is why I steered clear of it all.

And because I'm just not as funny as Charlie Brooker.

Guideline 5: Cover Twitter

Cover letters are like teaser trailers for the main event - the CV. A teaser trailer gives snippets of the main story in order to draw in a paying audience to see the movie. Trailers have a very limited amount of time in which to do that, and they must stand out amongst all the other trailers being shown at the same time.

I was helping a friend write a cover letter for a job application. He'd send me a draft, and I'd scan-read it and report back. Then he'd make some changes, send it back, and I'd do the same until either he or I was happy. More often than not I was telling him to cut something out, or reword it to make it shorter.

I think there is a habit amongst recent graduates to try to divulge information in incredibly convoluted language. It's a habit most likely picked up from reading complex academic journals, a habit that does not help when thrust into the job market.

So while I was waiting on another tightened redraft from my friend, I got thinking. I was trying to get him to make the first paragraph of his cover letter short, snappy, and easy to read. What else is short, snappy and easy to read? Tweets, of course.

So I set myself the task of writing my CV in a single Tweet.

There are services and sites devoted to using Twitter for jobhunting; here's a list of some of them, and here's another jobhunting site using Twitter. However, most of them involve normal full-sized CVs, and I'm not entirely convinced of their use (prove me wrong please, if you can!).

I wrote my Tweet CV and I was quite proud of its pith, until I found this competition run in January by workthing (workthing's blog is truly excellent by the way). You can find the winner here and also some honourable mentions and bad examples here. Mine turned out to be rather weak by comparison! I'm going to keep working on my Tweet CV; I could spend a whole lot of time making it perfect.

In of itself, a Tweet CV might not be much use, but I still heartily recommend having a go at writing yours because it's a really good exercise in writing short, snappy, work profiles. The 140 character limit is a great motivator for using language creatively and effectively.

I did then ask myself if this was a worrying degradation of language into soulless 140 character sentences. Is it a gross reduction of one's life into one line? Is this a grassroots introduction of Orwellian newsspeak?

My answer to all of these questions: Not at all. In my final year of high school I was awarded an A for my Advanced English portfolio, which had consisted only of one short poem and one piece of prose written almost entirely in AOL speak. Had Twitter existed in 2003 I probably would have done a piece based on that instead. The point is not to reduce the feeling, or the beauty of the language. The challenge is to compact it without losing meaning, beauty, or indeed originality.

Translating these ideas to the challenge of creating your own Tweet CV should help you to understand the purpose of a good cover letter.

(You could also try expressing your career in 10-line poetry too, if you like...I would just not advise sending that out to employers!)

Kind of related:

These sites don't show you how to sell yourself in one sentence, but they do talk about using social media to win you a job, which after last week's post on how it can lose you a job, I thought would be a positive list to include.

CV or not CV: Twitter tips

Does your Twitter handle belong on your resume?

Is Twitter the new CV?

Tweet yourself to a new job

Want a dream Job? Blog, Tweet or Youtube it!

twit

I joined twitter.

Obviously I'm following Stephen Fry already.