Kent Newsome on technology, music and life

6/12/2006


Journaling Does Not a Journalist Make

At least not in the way Scoble means.

I have no doubt that a lot of bloggers got it wrong when reporting Scoble's move. I also have no doubt that all of the blogging frenzy that went on comes with the territory when you're popular and in the public eye.

In my semi-humble opinion, the biggest thing holding the blogging movement back today is a complete failure to reach any consensus on what a blog is and what a blog isn't.

The fact is that blogs are many things. Fun, hard, happy, sad, serious, frivolous. The beauty of a blog is mostly in the eyes and fingers of the blog-holder.

To some, it is a podium to express their views.

To some it is a natural part of their larger purpose.

To some it is a way to explore their passions.

To some it is a living Christmas letter (and I mean no disrespect- that is a beautiful and worthy purpose).

To some it is an evolution in traditional journalism.

To some it is a way to entertain.

To some it is a way to grieve.

To some it is a way to have conversations with people about topics of mutual interest.

To many it is some combination of the above.

Granted, that is no excuse for posting irresponsibly. And it does not exempt bloggers from some of the good practices of traditional journalism.

But to say that bloggers are journalists is to miscast both the nature and the beauty of a blog.

Unless, of course, by journalist, you mean someone who keeps a journal.

That would be pretty accurate.

Tags: ,
Posted by Kent @ 6/12/2006 08:34:00 PM | Permalink

Submit to: Digg | Netscape | Reddit | Tailrank
Bookmark on: Del.icio.us | Furl | Ma.gnolia
Reactions: 4 Comments | Post a Comment | Inbound Links

4 Comment(s):

Kent, I agree with you on the point of Journalist and Mark Scoble’s post. However, I can’t say I agree with your statement “the biggest thing holding the blogging movement back today is a complete failure to reach any consensus on what a blog is and what a blog isn’t.” Can you clarify that statement for my understanding? What group of bloggers is being held back and how do you see it being done?

I’ve always viewed this lack of definition as a “freedom” and one of bloggings greatest strengths. I fear that if you reach a consensus on what a blog is then the next step is setting rules to govern blogs. Not something I would like to see happen.

By Anonymous Earl Moore, at 6/12/2006 10:01 PM  
**************************

I think it's being held back because

1) there are a lot of people (Gillmor et al) who are trying to define blogging in a way that serves their interests;

2) as a result there are a lot of counter-agruments from others about what a blog is or isn't (I am certainly guilty of this);

3) and as a result, mainstream America looks at us as the lunatic fringe where, as I said in another post today "the customers aren't."

It's not the lack of a definition that bothers me; it's the attempt to create a consensus when I don't think one exists. When big companies and mainstream media see bloggers arguing over this stuff, they are more likely to just write off the whole movement.

It's complicated, but at its core I believe the problems arise between the camp that (wrongly, IMO) looks at blogging as a way to make money and the camp that looks at blogging as an extended dinner table conversation.

By Blogger Kent, at 6/12/2006 10:15 PM  
**************************

Kent: Thanks for expanding on that. I understand your point.

By Anonymous Earl Moore, at 6/13/2006 5:54 AM  
**************************

Au contraire, the blogging movement REQUIRES a definition sleight-of-hand.

That many people like to keep diaries, even online, and like to chat with their friends, is not a "movement".

That professional pundits are fighting over the changes in the news business is interesting to them, but very much inside baseball.

But if you can HYPE HYPE HYPE the diary-writers and chatters as threats to the pundits, and dangle the power/influence/attention of the pundits in front of the diary-writers and chatters - well, that's a MOVEMENT.

From the other side, whenever anyone criticizes the blog-pundits, deflect the critism by saying they didn't mention the diary-writers and chatters. And whenever anyone points out the diary-writers and chatters aren't all that influential, deflect the criticism by saying they didn't mention the blog-pundits.

So the confusion strategy works both "forwards" and "backwards".

By Blogger Seth Finkelstein, at 6/13/2006 7:46 PM  
**************************

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link
DISCLAIMER
Newsome.Org, Kent's blog and the related pages and content are solely the thoughts and opinions of Kent Newsome in his personal capacity and are not associated with any other person or entity, including, without limitation, any partnership or other business entity Kent may now or hereafter be associated with.