I had a letter printed in Radio Times this week. I say letter as it was actually an e-mail, but you get my drift.
Other than the rather odd sense of excitement (not least because it was awarded a prize for comedy letter of the week), I was slightly disappointed to note that they had only used two thirds of the actual body of what I had originally sent. It could have been a space thing, or it could have been that only two thirds of my rant was worth publishing, but I’ll never know.
Much is rightly made about the explosion of fake news, but the worst of it is where there is an element of truth to it. There has been a famous Facebook meme from the US that appears to show a prominent female politician apparently slurring her words and appearing drunk. That clip was subsequently proved to have been edited together to give the impression that was required, and the unexpurgated version shows nothing like that series of events.
I recently received a CV for a role that was so perfectly matched to my client’s requirements for me to immediately doubt it’s authenticity (I know, it’s a sad world that I inhabit). One reason for this was that the CV contained no dates whatsoever, just a list of companies at which this person had worked (all of which were directly relevant).
Wikipedia helpfully defines curriculum vitae as Latin for “the course of your life”, a written overview of someone’s life’s work. That does not necessarily mean it should include dates (we live in an ageist society after all), but convention dictates that it is the most appropriate thing.
A quick squizz at LinkedIn showed a number of different companies all tied to the same individual (he had provided the http link). When questioned about the omission on the CV, the response was that they were not included as not being relevant.
I dismissed the application as untrustworthy, suggesting that not including those details was an error of judgement. But was it not just the same as Radio Times editing my correspondence, fitting the gap allocated and making it more pithy and appropriate?