Big companies are adverse to publicity — and the bigger the company, the more adverse.” Nope. “Adverse” means “negative” or “bad”; we wouldn’t say the companies were “bad to publicity.” The writer meant they were opposed to it, uneasy about it, and the word he wanted was “averse.” A few paragraphs later, he wrote about “heavy adverse publicity,” and that was just right.
09:00 AM - July 1, 2007
Who cares if it’s true? - Modern-day newsrooms reconsider their values
What Is Russia Today? - The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis
And from the left…Fox News - There’s more to Fox News’ strategy of hiring liberals than creating a public boxing match
Why Skype isn’t safe for journalists - Here are some alternatives for secure voice calls to use instead
Placing a bet on USA Today - Gannett has long felt the television model could translate into print. Now it’s using its flagship paper to double down on that idea.
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
Maybe everything when that name is “Satoshi Nakamoto”
Here’s what happens when the readers choose the frontpage story
The numbers on the Daily Mail don’t add up
Conservation group calls for donations of small knitted jumpers for birds who have been caught in oil spills
Stunning timelapse of Yosemite National Park
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.