I read an interesting article in The Atlantic this week by Andrew Sullivan about blogging – why we do it (or more to the point, why he does it). He made the point that blogging is not like article writing in that your audience is not once-removed from you. If they don’t like what you’ve written, you’re going to hear about it in spades and without the buffer of an editor. He made several other points, but that one stuck with me. For me, it’s the differentiator between blogging and writing for print. And there is a segment of the population who don’t get it, haven’t gotten it, and will never get it.
These are the ones Deb Ng talked about in her post this week about blogging for someone who doesn’t know how to blog. It was great seeing her rant because A) in general, Deb doesn’t rant, B) I didn’t feel so alone in the ranting department, and C) she was spot on.
The trouble is some people are approaching blogging like they’re approaching article writing. Only blogs aren’t articles – they’re mini-sagas, journals, communities, and they’re more immediate and personal (and personable). You build a blog and you build your own blogger credentials through your online blogging network. You can position yourself as an expert, as a moderator, as a pain in the arse, whatever your particular point of view requires. Article writing – hey, you might be able to gain some expertise, but just try discussing that article with readers when you’re issues-removed from it once it’s published and you have to go through an editor to respond.
It’s changing writing, but not all of writing. We’ll still need information without the discussion/debate. We’ll still want to sit down with a magazine and really savor someone’s talent, skill, and labor. But it’s making us more accountable for our research, our ideas, and our conjectures. In my view, that’s going to strengthen us as professionals.
What do you think?
I love the idea that in a way, blogging makes us MORE accountable for what we write. There’s definitely an opinion in the print community that because anyone can blog, that means anyone can just say anything they want and the format isn’t legitimate from a journalistic perspective. I’ve found that not to be true. When I write something that isn’t well-researched or even something that doesn’t justify well why I’m going against common opinion, people jump all over me for it.
I love the differences between the two kinds of writing. What I can’t do in one forum, I can do in the other. Fills all kinds of writerly needs.
I think, with the existence of blogger (blogosphere), cyberspace has been get up from the silence night, more live and joy. I like this post.