Stuart Bruce did a piece on the relative readability of journalists versus PRs. As this is now doing the rounds here’s my 2 penn’orth. I’m not sure Stuart is right when it comes to readability. Gunning-Fog refers to the average number of years schooling you’d need to understand the text. A different thing although the text does imply the lower your score, the more readable it would be to visitors. I think that’s more about numbers and I’m about quality. (sniff)
But hey – as I’m my own PR guy, I can spin this anyway I want. This is from some of my daily reading.
ICAEW – 13.69 (the actions of the Institute are beyond me as well)
Accounting Web – 11.69 (I can’t understand some of what they talk about either)
Jason Woodrow – 11.26 (seems easy on the eye to me)
Jeff Nolan – 11.24 (and I thought Jeff’s stuff was one level above comic book)
Stefan Topfer – 11.02 (sorry Stefan, it’s clearly the influence of Zoli and I distorting the results)
AccountancyAge – 11.02 (they’ve clearly lost their tabloid touch – shame)
Paul Kedrosky – 10.85 (now that’s taking the piss)
Tom Foremski – 10.77 (ex-FT hack)
Zoli Erdos – 10.42 (what’s buggering up Zoil’s wry take on stuff?)
Me – 10.35 (I’m saying nothing)
Vinnie Mirchandani – 10.20 (he’s smarter, I use longer words)
New York Times – 9.37 (and slipping as it descends into irrelevancy)
Stuart Jones – 9.34 (Stuart’s an accountant who’s waging a great campaign against local government waste and doing a great job)
Neil Robertson – 9.04 (I love Neil’s blarticles – great early morning bathroom reading)
David Maister – 8.61 (management guru, as junior school head boy? Can’t be right – David’s good)
David Tebbutt – 8.;59 (David’s a friend who likes the fact he writes for 9 year old – I love his stuff)
FT.com – 0.00 (yes- -check it out – you need no education to understand the FT)
Substitute your own favourites, put your own spin on this, flame me if you think I’m being unfair.
UPDATE (as suggested by David Tebbutt)
Readers Digest – 10.48
Economist – 9.50
Technorati Tags: humor
