It should be "health care" because "care" is a noun modified by "health" (noun adjunct or attributive noun). Like dental care, medical care, emergency care, abortion care. Chicken soup. Car insurance. I don't know how AP maintains any credibility after this if I'm honest.
HUGE NEWS for editors: the AP has changed its style guide. It's now "healthcare" (not "health care") and "childcare" (not "child care") https://t.co/189NypUkyo
@adamconner i can't imagine a touchscreen imac wouldn't it make your back hurt?
also i just want them to bring back the ipod touch so my son can listen to music without having a phone (i got him an old refurbished one off amazon but it kinda stinks)
@MLB@Cubs@Gatorade He signed my 6 year old daughters arm cast at the game in Cleveland :) this would just be icing on the cake for her! Biggest fan! #PCA#GoCubsGo
Comms/digi split worked when digi was a channel. It doesn't map to how audiences exist. Gen X lead in multi-device consumption: TV, phone, comp. Boomers: TV. Gen Z: social. Press/earned media need diff. messaging than a 22yo on TT. Build teams around that, not legacy structures.
The comms/digi debate stems from when digi was new, & largely tactical: formats & channels. Comms developed messaging & narrative, digi repurposed for channels
Now, digi professionals basically ARE comms professionals w/ tactical expertise. Everyone develops message & narrative.
The comms/digi debate stems from when digi was new, & largely tactical: formats & channels. Comms developed messaging & narrative, digi repurposed for channels
Now, digi professionals basically ARE comms professionals w/ tactical expertise. Everyone develops message & narrative.
It also, IMO, misses the point of "content," which gets to the comms/digi debate of yesterday.
The focus should be on audiences. Who do you want to reach, how do you reach them, and how do they consume content?
Everything should be structured around audiences first.