YES, YES, I'M REALLY BACK THIS TIME

hi guys,

yeah, yeah, i know. i promised to be back but i wasn't. wanna know why? i started the blog with great commitment but very quickly i found i had little motivation to carry on. i mean, c'mon, who would want to keep exposing the shit in newspapers (and i haven't even begun tv) when these ugly newspaper guys are so repetitive in their stupid mistakes? in the morning i would get up, look at the papers, and find some two millions stories all around just begging to be shredded in crappyjournalism.blogspot.com. but then, i said to myself, aren't the two million there every day? aren't they all completely crappy with no hope in hell to get better ever? most importantly, are these vain ass-journalists ready to believe they need to change, and then change? so why should i waste my time? that's what i thought.

it got so bad that i didn't even open my dashboard for days. (read up faqs in blogger.com to know what's a dasboard.) today, i did. and i'm glad i did. for one, there are many more comments from readers than i'd imagined there would be. and, secondly, i realized people are indeed reacting to my stuff.

so i'm back.

of course, some of these new comments improve on what i write. let me say on record that i don't claim to be the best news writer. newspaper writing is not literature. yes, i repeat, newspaper writing is not literature. i'm no author. and you shouldn't pretend to be as well. so certainly you can write better copy than me. anyone can. the idea is -- write straight, to-the-point, concise. write clearly and cleanly for instant comprehension. and don't assume foreknowledge on the readers' part. event is not news. proper nouns are not news. reference to context is a must. interpreting the development in context is news. no, interpretation is not analysis and views. haven't you read the wonderful link i gave last month?

some of the comments have pointed at genuine mistakes in my sample copy. thanks. there are many who are still wrong. i don't want to react to these comments only because it will sidetrack me from my main business. but there is one bit that i want to straighten. at least two commentators have objected to my phrase that "terrorism rocked kashmir". they say i've used rock wrongly. that rock is to be used as in bon jovi's rock band. well, please know that rock is a standard english word used in newspaper writing around the world for exactly the purpose i've given it.

according to the chambers 21st century dictionary revised edition 2001 (page 1213), rock (verb) means "to move or make something move or shake violently; to disturb, upset or shock". it gives the following sentence as example: "the news rocked the sporting world." as noun, too, rock is explained as "a cause of source of difficulty, danger or disaster." of course rock also means bon jovi's band music, among other meanings!

cheers!