Blogging is becoming more and more widespread and sometimes becomes an obsessions for some.
It is another level and form of communication.
Blogs are compositions that we can create with an awareness of a community but can create in the privacy of our own laptops, whereever we might be. But the community we are writing for may or may not necessarily be the same as the one we live in. It is not like a local newspaper. Although, blogs can report on local events and in a periodic style. But the writer of a blog, even a periodic blog (which may not be published regularly), may not be writing for the community in which the blogger resides in. They are writing, instead for an online audience, that may be only read by a select few (especially if the blog exists on the tailend, the lesser known blogs (not mainstream), of the blogosphere).
The smaller our audience is, the more freedom we feel to express our thoughts and beliefs. And the converse, the larger our audience is, the more we feel constrained in what we can write.
But could this be true of other paperleaf periodicals? Possibly. But contributing writers probably keep in mind that their readers will be local readers, the community that the periodical is featured/produced for.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Id No More?
It seems blogs and other online writing are like other types of published works: they try to adhere to a certain code of conduct, and at the same time, they try to break that same code. Perhaps the only difference with online writing is it tried to break a code of conduct that had not existed just yet. But perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps, since there was no existing code of conduct to begin with on the internet, the old adage of anything goes was in play. It really was the wild west of the digital world.
So, it seems that this was a destructive time and perhaps, now, the internet is in the process of becoming a civilized environment, as O’Rielly’s draft of a blogger’s code of conduct signifies.
The destruction was probably similar to the wild west. People would be strung up and hung without much consideration/deliberation. Online, there is a tendency and a feeling of freedom to criticize and attack on a whim, such as on blogs, emails, or IMs. These places were those where individuals let their id rule.
But in recent developments, where people are severely emotionally affected by the language used in internet communications, it seems the id is no longer welcome in these places anymore (or perhaps they never were, but now there are rules to prevent its presence).
But should there be a place where we can let our id roam freely? I think people using the internet as a place to vent without much thought is relieving for them. It’s a relief to not have to think about what you say or do that might affect/offend others. People are always offended by the things others say to them, so self-censorship is difficult to dismiss. But should we always feel constrained by this knowledge? Should we have a place where we can be as brash as we like, where we can call people assholes without a second thought/glance? If it’s such a relief, perhaps we should.
Like other taboo bodily functions as flatulence and belching, perhaps our id needs to be let out or else its build up will become too painful to hold in and might actually do some internal damage in the long run.
Perhaps we need a place online specifically designated for those who only want to vent. While these may be rants, I think that the words typed while in this frame of mind should be taken seriously. When people speak, or communicate otherwise, they want their words to be acknowledged because behind them are some emotions that want to be empathized with and validated. But at the same time, readers should know that these words aren’t meant to hurt, they are only meant to express the raw thoughts and emotions of an individual. Readers and subjects/targets should not take these words personally. Undigested thoughts and emotions are not even completely accepted or believed by the person who owns them. This person doesn’t even feel that they completely own these words for this very reason.
Some mights say that rants and raves should only be reserved for the personal sphere and troubled individuals should write in a paperleaf notebook journal. Yes, of course, these thoughts are very personal. And, yes, a journal is one way to get these things out. But what if that wasn’t enough? Those who are troubled want their troubles to be acknowledge. People want attention for the troubles they go through. They do want a certain amount of sympathy and understanding. This simple acknowledgment followed previously by venting can be an enormous relief for those troubled. The verbalizing solidified the past into the past and the acknowledgment is the marker that buckels it in place. This helps a person move on.
I kinda want to start a blog specifically for this purpose. I’ll call it Bull Sessions.
So, it seems that this was a destructive time and perhaps, now, the internet is in the process of becoming a civilized environment, as O’Rielly’s draft of a blogger’s code of conduct signifies.
The destruction was probably similar to the wild west. People would be strung up and hung without much consideration/deliberation. Online, there is a tendency and a feeling of freedom to criticize and attack on a whim, such as on blogs, emails, or IMs. These places were those where individuals let their id rule.
But in recent developments, where people are severely emotionally affected by the language used in internet communications, it seems the id is no longer welcome in these places anymore (or perhaps they never were, but now there are rules to prevent its presence).
But should there be a place where we can let our id roam freely? I think people using the internet as a place to vent without much thought is relieving for them. It’s a relief to not have to think about what you say or do that might affect/offend others. People are always offended by the things others say to them, so self-censorship is difficult to dismiss. But should we always feel constrained by this knowledge? Should we have a place where we can be as brash as we like, where we can call people assholes without a second thought/glance? If it’s such a relief, perhaps we should.
Like other taboo bodily functions as flatulence and belching, perhaps our id needs to be let out or else its build up will become too painful to hold in and might actually do some internal damage in the long run.
Perhaps we need a place online specifically designated for those who only want to vent. While these may be rants, I think that the words typed while in this frame of mind should be taken seriously. When people speak, or communicate otherwise, they want their words to be acknowledged because behind them are some emotions that want to be empathized with and validated. But at the same time, readers should know that these words aren’t meant to hurt, they are only meant to express the raw thoughts and emotions of an individual. Readers and subjects/targets should not take these words personally. Undigested thoughts and emotions are not even completely accepted or believed by the person who owns them. This person doesn’t even feel that they completely own these words for this very reason.
Some mights say that rants and raves should only be reserved for the personal sphere and troubled individuals should write in a paperleaf notebook journal. Yes, of course, these thoughts are very personal. And, yes, a journal is one way to get these things out. But what if that wasn’t enough? Those who are troubled want their troubles to be acknowledge. People want attention for the troubles they go through. They do want a certain amount of sympathy and understanding. This simple acknowledgment followed previously by venting can be an enormous relief for those troubled. The verbalizing solidified the past into the past and the acknowledgment is the marker that buckels it in place. This helps a person move on.
I kinda want to start a blog specifically for this purpose. I’ll call it Bull Sessions.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Blogging Guidelines from O'Reilly
Blogger's Code of Conduct
(from O'Reilly's Radar)
1. Take responsibility for yours and others comments
2. Label your tolerance level for abusive comments
3. Consider eliminating anonymous comments
4. Ignore the trolls (a.k.a. cyber bullies)
5. Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so
6. If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so
7. Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person
(from O'Reilly's Radar)
1. Take responsibility for yours and others comments
2. Label your tolerance level for abusive comments
3. Consider eliminating anonymous comments
4. Ignore the trolls (a.k.a. cyber bullies)
5. Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so
6. If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so
7. Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Loosing Your Voice
In response to below, I wonder if bloggers do run into the trouble of losing their voice and selling out after a certain point. I'm sure this is more probable with head bloggers. But I wonder about the tail bloggers, the average blogger like me. It seems that if there is no reason to catch mass attention, there would be no need for me to change my voice. It seems there is a certain tone that bloggers might take to get attention. In an interview with Aylet Waldman, a novelist, she said, "There is a tone that you have to adopt in order to make your voice heard amidst the general cacophony. You have to make it pop. And an easy way to make it pop is for it to be snarky." But what if some readers don't like to read an always-irritable voice? In other cases, some might change their subject matter or the look of their blog.
But I would especially not have to worry about changing my voice if I'm an unknown. I know that, along with myself, very few (if any) people will read this. Even if I became known, wouldn't I keep the voice I've been writing in if that's what's been attracting readers? I would think so.
But what if I wanted attention to my blog to get acknowledgment that what I have to say matters to somebody? In that case, trying to get that attention may be a losing battle. Firstly, because I have no idea how to get mass attention. Secondly, because I don't think what I have to say is groundbreaking or of interest to very many people.
In all honesty, however, I do want someone to read and respond to my blog. If I'm going to have it all out in the open, I obviously want some attention. If I kept this in my own personal journal, not expecting or wanting anyone else to read it, I would have no other audience in mind but future self, who would go back and read my past to see how far I've come and how much I've learned. But having a public blog changes things. Now, I have a public audience and I want them to see and learn what I've written about. If I did want to get their attention and thought that changing my voice is the way to do that, how do I know how to change? What if I don't think snarky will work?
But I would especially not have to worry about changing my voice if I'm an unknown. I know that, along with myself, very few (if any) people will read this. Even if I became known, wouldn't I keep the voice I've been writing in if that's what's been attracting readers? I would think so.
But what if I wanted attention to my blog to get acknowledgment that what I have to say matters to somebody? In that case, trying to get that attention may be a losing battle. Firstly, because I have no idea how to get mass attention. Secondly, because I don't think what I have to say is groundbreaking or of interest to very many people.
In all honesty, however, I do want someone to read and respond to my blog. If I'm going to have it all out in the open, I obviously want some attention. If I kept this in my own personal journal, not expecting or wanting anyone else to read it, I would have no other audience in mind but future self, who would go back and read my past to see how far I've come and how much I've learned. But having a public blog changes things. Now, I have a public audience and I want them to see and learn what I've written about. If I did want to get their attention and thought that changing my voice is the way to do that, how do I know how to change? What if I don't think snarky will work?
Bloggers could become easy prey to standard public relations techniques
by Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher.com
As companies and their public relations organizations ponder how to react to the “blogging” phenomenon, I’d like to point out some tricks of the trade used in the business of influencing media.
Forewarned is forearmed some say, and maybe some of the following will help bloggers who are not professional journalists.
I believe that some bloggers are in danger of losing their independence and their unique voice within the media landscape—if they become pulled into a sphere of influence. This is the “sphere” that professional journalists operate in every day and cannot avoid.
This sphere of influence has many aspects. It involves conversations with company representatives, being included in pre-briefings on important company announcements or mergers, prompt return of phone calls during breaking stories, invitations to events, being fed exclusive stories, and easy access to top executives. In each of those examples, there is a point of leverage that can be subtle, or it can be blunt and to the point.
I might not make too many friends by raising such topics but part of my mission with this venture is to educate readers about how the media “sausage” is made. And if bloggers give up a key vantage point as commentators on the media, by allowing themselves to be pulled into the sphere of influence, we will be poorer for it.
It is impossible to work as a professional journalist and not be influenced in some way. If this wasn’t true, there would not be a massive public relations industry. Many PR companies compare the cost of influencing editorial coverage with the cost of advertising in that publication. A common metric is a number that represents the ratio of: (PR cost of generating a certain amount of column inches in publication)/ advertising cost in that publication. Obviously, there is a higher value on editorial content.
by Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher.com
As companies and their public relations organizations ponder how to react to the “blogging” phenomenon, I’d like to point out some tricks of the trade used in the business of influencing media.
Forewarned is forearmed some say, and maybe some of the following will help bloggers who are not professional journalists.
I believe that some bloggers are in danger of losing their independence and their unique voice within the media landscape—if they become pulled into a sphere of influence. This is the “sphere” that professional journalists operate in every day and cannot avoid.
This sphere of influence has many aspects. It involves conversations with company representatives, being included in pre-briefings on important company announcements or mergers, prompt return of phone calls during breaking stories, invitations to events, being fed exclusive stories, and easy access to top executives. In each of those examples, there is a point of leverage that can be subtle, or it can be blunt and to the point.
I might not make too many friends by raising such topics but part of my mission with this venture is to educate readers about how the media “sausage” is made. And if bloggers give up a key vantage point as commentators on the media, by allowing themselves to be pulled into the sphere of influence, we will be poorer for it.
It is impossible to work as a professional journalist and not be influenced in some way. If this wasn’t true, there would not be a massive public relations industry. Many PR companies compare the cost of influencing editorial coverage with the cost of advertising in that publication. A common metric is a number that represents the ratio of: (PR cost of generating a certain amount of column inches in publication)/ advertising cost in that publication. Obviously, there is a higher value on editorial content.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
No Fear in Honesty and Disagreement
As I’ve read and researched about blogs, I’m finding that certain spheres have found a use for and have manipulated blogs to suit their purpose. Business is using blogs to talk about their products; journalism for getting stories out (esp. those stories that don’t get enough coverage or none at all); the individual for sharing their life and thoughts. From all this research, there are some commonalities between these spheres in their use of blogs. That is, they are opening up and trying to be as honest as possible because internet users and blog readers can spot a phony from a mile away.
I find this common thread to be very ensuring. It suits the internet as a free source of information (for the most part). It is the ultimate democracy. And the users are enforcing honesty on it. They are the ones that will call out a phony right on the phony’s and their own blog. So, blog creators must be sure that their info is accurate and honest, or else someone is liable to call them out.
Beyond honesty, there is more openness and wilingness to disagree because of the comfort in anonimity. On first impression, concealing one’s identity and attacking someone would be considered cowardice. However, if acknowledging one’s identity will keep one from speaking the truth or pointing out a falsehood, perhaps anonimity isn’t all that bad, especially for the timid.
I find this common thread to be very ensuring. It suits the internet as a free source of information (for the most part). It is the ultimate democracy. And the users are enforcing honesty on it. They are the ones that will call out a phony right on the phony’s and their own blog. So, blog creators must be sure that their info is accurate and honest, or else someone is liable to call them out.
Beyond honesty, there is more openness and wilingness to disagree because of the comfort in anonimity. On first impression, concealing one’s identity and attacking someone would be considered cowardice. However, if acknowledging one’s identity will keep one from speaking the truth or pointing out a falsehood, perhaps anonimity isn’t all that bad, especially for the timid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
