 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Tuesday, October 15, 2002
The problem I have is with the suggestion that all bloggers should conform to some set of rules. If someone fancies themselves to be a journalist, then they need to do things so that other people recognize them as such. After all, it matters not whether I declare myself as a journalist, it only matters whether people recognize me as a journalist (which I am not). But, I don't think weblogs are only for those who want to be considered journalists. Just as the Internet is big enough for all types of web sites, weblogging is big enough for all types of writing. In fact, I would suggest you simply remove weblogging from the whole debate. A person that is recognized as a journalist by readers will be recognized as such regardless of whether they write in a weblog, a static web site, or on paper. Society and businesses who hire people as journalists have defined what they believe journalists to be. I am not a journalist, and I have no intention of being recognized as such. Anyone who reads what I write is free to form their own opinion. If they like it, they continue reading. If they don't they are free to ignore it and move on. Finally, I am having difficulty understanding how Doc's disclosure helps what he wrote in his weblog. There is actually very little content about what went on at the event. He didn't return and declare that he has switched to Windows. He simply reported that he gave a speech and was impressed by the geeks in attendance. Should anyone form an opinion about a person's integrity by one simple paragraph? Or should that integrity be defined by a history of that person's actions? For myself, a simple one paragraph and one sentence disclosure provides little value. My opinions about your writing or Doc's writing is based on reading over a period of time.
|
