But i love the fact that a very usable and memorable quote came out of one of my questions; ‘internal arguements’ alone are certainly a heavy price to pay, but it was brave to start up so strong with online job ads and the success is well deserved.

Hopefully, in the near future, we won’t have ‘one hand tied behind our backs’ when a new channel arrives and threatens the stability of the jobs we’ll soon be in!

I’m not going to spend time in Photoshop for a literal which still makes sense anyway. But I’ll add a link direct to the PDF for convenience and mention the typo in the body.

Thanks for the explanation, Paul.

Here’s the thing: clear communication is obviously important to you; otherwise you wouldn’t have included the chart in the first place. That being the case, I’d say that the disservice being done to your readers by the significant syntactic error (“‘To separate teams’? To separate them, I should do…what?”) far outweighs the inconvenience of Photoshopping in a “Two” and adding a tiny-text caption, “Original image courtesy of Columbia Journalism Review, edited to correct typo in original text.”

What’s more, if the graphic indeed came from the Columbia Journalism Review, where’s the attribution? Isn’t that sort of a basic tenet of journalism, whether online or off-, that fair-use material incorporated in a publication receive some sort of basic credit?

My apologies for going off on a rant, but I think your argument is indefensible given the context of this web site, and I sincerely hope you’ll correct the graphic AND give Columbia Journalism Review proper attribution for the original.

BTW, you may want to update the infographic to change “To separate teams…” to “Two separate teams…”.