Wow, what a combination! When I first saw this prompt, I must admit that I was not thrilled. Jarvis? Sullivan? Huh? Upon re-reading "Why I Blog", I have developed a bit more enthusiasm. While initially the forms of "reporting" are different, both Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan maintain the idea of an "open forum". Both believe that writing does not end with the author; it continues to expand and grow once it reaches its readers. Upon reaching the reader, the journalist/blogger's ideas are expounded upon, added to, and often tossed back. Sullivan notes that a blogger "is similar. . .to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate." Jarvis, however, finds that ". . . at some point in the life of a story, a journalist (working wherever) may see the idea and then can get all kinds of new input."
The main working difference between a blogger and journalist, I believe, is the focus. A blogger's focus is on himself in relevance to the world. He is the focal point, a tangible point of non-change from which to base his observations off of. However, a journalist has his topic handed to him, and must seek out confirmation outside of himself. This prompt is asking us to mesh, somewhat, apples and oranges. Blogging and journalism are inherently different, even though one may be a subset of the other.
Sullivan and Jarvis both marvel in the immediacy of the here and now. I think that Sullivan expands Jarvis' model to a degree, even though Sullivan never really presents a model of his own. Jarvis basically says, "The power is shifting from the writer to the reader." and Sullivan is saying, "My reader provides constant and needed feedback". I think the two complement each other, but don't inherently add anything, nor take away. They're different, even thought the ideas are similar. They're meant to be considered in varying realms, and not meant to be meshed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your idea, but where would you place self-proclaimed blogs like NYmag's "Daily Intel" or the NYTimes "City Room"? They both fall into your category as journalism - the focus is on the reader (even though Intel has a distinctive voice), but the format is a blog. So are they not blogs? I don't know what to call them, but they aren't the same as "Kea's Korner" or my blog, which focuses on the writer and what they're learning.
ReplyDeleteMany newspapers are catching on to the blog model, although they still fall into the reader-focused category of journalism. Maybe a thicker line has to be drawn between these two types: journalism that follows the linear, real-time format and publications that focus on the writer.
Hm. . . . I think they're called blogs because of the format they follow, aka, daily posting, relaxed grammar and syntax, and a bit of personal reference. They're not exactly a "personal" blog, but their format makes them a blog, I think.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a distinction is probably needed. However, I don't think it's as hard to draw as one might think. . . . there're the writers who deliver their take on the news, and then there's the purer form of journalism, which is definitely morphing into something else.
This is an interesting discussion. I agree with you both that format is key. If it's written to be read on the web and is regularly updated in postings of reverse chronological order, it would be a blog. Physical newspapers simply don't count as blogs. But more and more newspapers are getting into the blogging business. I think Keagen's point that blogging generally reflects a particular perspective is also important, making blogging a bit more like editorial writing.
ReplyDeleteFormat and perspective deserve consideration because they change how a person reads a blog or a newspaper, what the individual reader's expectations are.
This is all getting blurry with newspapers incorporating more bloglike features and blogs becoming more newsy. I read today that TPM has joined the White House press pool.