blog vs. journal
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 01:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charmianI (try to) follow a simple rule when blog publicly. Am I okay with J. Random Internet User, inclusive of all individuals I have met or will ever meet on the internets under this identity, seeing this, connected to this username/domain name/identity? If I am, I post it. If not, I lock it, or post it in a secured place elsewhere, or discuss it in private with a friend.
I wouldn't go as far as saying, as in this comment, that people who do post to the internet this way "treat themselves as broadcast media" or wonder if "is this their entire life?" For one thing, a television commentator can be fired, whereas someone posting on the internet is in the majority of cases not dependent on it for their living, and their own boss doing this as a hobby. Also, television commentators are held to certain standards of 'decency' by the FFC. For another thing, there are many, many bloggers out there, and for most of them it's not their entire life any more than other internet scenes are. It's kind of like wondering whether someone who writes entire novels for themselves has a life or not.
If anything, I think these people don't treat themselves as "broadcast media" but as "print media." Having a blog is like having your own magazine, or publishing your own book. IMHO, the form of media and the way a lot of print journalism is moving to the web, and the way some prominent bloggers have become journalists, while professional journalists are bloggers, and the way in which pro bloggers may interact and reference and link to amateur bloggers only accelerates this change. If I have a LJ and famous author X has a LJ, it becomes much easier for us to be treated as similar, and held to similar standards of behavior.
Another important issue was brought up: how are people supposed to make friends, if they lock their journals? Well, you can still make friends if you blog, but assuming you wish to journal and write down things that you only wish to discuss with your friends, I think there are still ways to make friends (on LJ type systems), which for the sake of avoiding repetition, I refer you to my comment here.
On the issue of criticism, the "cult of the amateur" and, again, the way pro and amateur are often now presented in the same format, or sharing the same site, and the way amateurs are going pro thanks to the net, tends to make people increasingly hold everything to the same standard, although when I really think about it, it's the "death of the author," which also contributes to this phenomenon. Everything becomes flattened and juxtaposed on the internet. The amplification and link sharing powers of the nets can allow on occasions an amateur's post to become influential and widely read, almost up to professional levels. Perhaps the criticism is simply the reverse phenomenon?
tl;dr aside, I think this is like how Youtube is full of moron comments (not that anyone who posts comments that an OP finds undesirable is a moron; but I mean, when anyone can comment, there is the possibility that anything will be commented). The internet is now a more popular place than ever, and if you wish to avoid moron comments or "the rampantly incivil" or whatever people who comment in ways you dislike, there has to be a gate of some sort.
I think also that public-ness of public blogging is an art, similar to being a public figure in general. As in all things, it's a skill that can be learned, and some who take to it naturally, and others to whom it comes with utmost difficulty. I see it as a subset of social skills, or perhaps it has aspects of being a 'politician' or a 'spin doctor.' (Although perhaps the correct word is more 'journalist' or 'author.')
I wouldn't go as far as saying, as in this comment, that people who do post to the internet this way "treat themselves as broadcast media" or wonder if "is this their entire life?" For one thing, a television commentator can be fired, whereas someone posting on the internet is in the majority of cases not dependent on it for their living, and their own boss doing this as a hobby. Also, television commentators are held to certain standards of 'decency' by the FFC. For another thing, there are many, many bloggers out there, and for most of them it's not their entire life any more than other internet scenes are. It's kind of like wondering whether someone who writes entire novels for themselves has a life or not.
If anything, I think these people don't treat themselves as "broadcast media" but as "print media." Having a blog is like having your own magazine, or publishing your own book. IMHO, the form of media and the way a lot of print journalism is moving to the web, and the way some prominent bloggers have become journalists, while professional journalists are bloggers, and the way in which pro bloggers may interact and reference and link to amateur bloggers only accelerates this change. If I have a LJ and famous author X has a LJ, it becomes much easier for us to be treated as similar, and held to similar standards of behavior.
Another important issue was brought up: how are people supposed to make friends, if they lock their journals? Well, you can still make friends if you blog, but assuming you wish to journal and write down things that you only wish to discuss with your friends, I think there are still ways to make friends (on LJ type systems), which for the sake of avoiding repetition, I refer you to my comment here.
On the issue of criticism, the "cult of the amateur" and, again, the way pro and amateur are often now presented in the same format, or sharing the same site, and the way amateurs are going pro thanks to the net, tends to make people increasingly hold everything to the same standard, although when I really think about it, it's the "death of the author," which also contributes to this phenomenon. Everything becomes flattened and juxtaposed on the internet. The amplification and link sharing powers of the nets can allow on occasions an amateur's post to become influential and widely read, almost up to professional levels. Perhaps the criticism is simply the reverse phenomenon?
tl;dr aside, I think this is like how Youtube is full of moron comments (not that anyone who posts comments that an OP finds undesirable is a moron; but I mean, when anyone can comment, there is the possibility that anything will be commented). The internet is now a more popular place than ever, and if you wish to avoid moron comments or "the rampantly incivil" or whatever people who comment in ways you dislike, there has to be a gate of some sort.
I think also that public-ness of public blogging is an art, similar to being a public figure in general. As in all things, it's a skill that can be learned, and some who take to it naturally, and others to whom it comes with utmost difficulty. I see it as a subset of social skills, or perhaps it has aspects of being a 'politician' or a 'spin doctor.' (Although perhaps the correct word is more 'journalist' or 'author.')
