On Your Mark, Get Set, Blog!

What is the relationship of blogging to the media? Mike raised the question the other day, and then set about answering it in part with his reconsideration of his initial assessment of Gerry Spence.

We have no editors in blogosphere. And we have the instant gratification of seeing our words set before the world. We can also change our mind, and, apparently rewrite our writings.

I am not sure these are all good things.

I have for the past five years written a weekly column for The Connecticut Law Tribune, and, until recently, and briefly, I wrote a monthly column for The Hartford Courant's Northeast Magazine. In both instances, what I wrote appeared in hard print. Once it was printed, I lived with the consequences.

In both cases, I had to wait for publication. For the Tribune, my deadline for the following week is early Thursday morning, and then there is no guarantee the essay will run when I want it to. The editor and publisher, Vincent Valvo, makes that call. By and large he humors me, and rarely edits what I write.

At the Courant, I had to pass through a phalanx of editors and then cross my fingers and hope there would be space in the Sunday magazine for me. I found the experience frustrating. Once invited to join this page, I gave it up.

I have blogged here now for several months.

I still say there is no thrill like seeing your essay in print. The other day, a blog from these pages was reprinted in a newspaper. I received more hate mail from the newspaper column than I did comments here. I will always read newspapers, even as I learn to read blogs.

I try to bring the same ethic to blogs that I bring to columns for print publication. Check sources, be concise, try to write in the active voice, and, as Jeremy Richey once observed, ensure that nothing is sacred and no one is safe. And then, once the essay is done, don't look back.

Somehow I am troubled by Mike's editing his prior posts. I would encourage him not to. Daily journalism, a career I was engaged in for five years before becoming a lawyer, is a challenge. Deadline pressue is a good thing. It makes you focus on what's important.

Does blogging have something to contribute? Absolutely. Candor and as many points of view as there are persons courageous enough to express them. No corporate voice smothers a spirit on fire, and no editor seeks to modulate the cacophony into a chorus. That's the way of the world.

And it is what makes blogging an adventure worth enjoying.

Comments

[Kirby]

Norm,

I'm not aware of any specific examples of Mike's editing of prior posts, so I won't speak to what he does, but as a blogger myself I find that it is an acceptable practice within limits.

Two of the major differences between blogging and print journalism is that blogging is typically done by amateur journalists/commentators and that blogging is a medium of instant gratification/communication.

As for the first, most bloggers don't get paid for what they do. I have a job that pays the bills and takes up at least 60 hours of my week. Blogging is a hobby -- both reading them and writing them. Since there are only so many hours left in a week after work, family and sleep, I really don't have time to write, edit, and re-write posts like I do with my professional work product.

As for the second, blogging places a premium on timeliness both in that readers go back to blogs that cover news/issues first and that many bloggers also enjoy the fact they cover issues before the mainstream media.

These two factors cause a lot of bloggers to "shoot off" posts and when that happens there can be errors -- particularly formating, typographical, spelling and grammar mistakes. If those are the changes that Mike makes, I don't think that is a big deal. There is no deception involved and it makes reading easier for those that find his posts in the archives. The print media does that too, although they typically have less of those errors by having a layer of editors absent in blogging.

Do I wish my blog writing was more polished? Absolutely. Is it realistic considering that I have less time to spend on writing blog posts than I spend walking my dogs? Not really.

If those are the kinds of changes he makes, I really don't think it is a big deal. I'd rather have five posts from Mike that he might correct or update than one post that is perfect. I'd be less informed if that was the case.

Fortunately, Crime & Federalism has both of you and that provides an interesting mix of styles and insights.

[David Giacalone]

I agree with Kirby's observations. Most of my editing is smoothing out poorly-worded sentences and weeding out typos. However, I will occasionally tone down something that, once up on the weblog, sounds harsher than I wanted it to be. Of course, if I change my mind about a material element of the piece, especially the conclusion, that change should be flagged.

[Mike]

Yep, what Kirby and David said. I'm not, like our good friend Winston Smith, editing this blog's history. But I try to clean up typos and formatting errors when I have the time. When doing so, I sometimes realize I treated someone harshly or unfairly. Then I publish a new post, not a retraction as such, but a supplement.

To me, that is one of the great things about blogging. We can always add to our words. We can give the full story. After all, any complex subject or person requires us to take more than one bite at the apple.

[Norm Pattis]

Mike:

Didn't think this would provoke such a discussion. Hope you don't feel picked on.

[Mike]

I don't feel picked on at all. It's a good dicussion.