From SilkCharm
DEFINITION: Bloggers - write about what they are passionate about. Journos - write about what other people are passionate about
It’s interesting that this has bubbled up today - given the news reports about the blogger dying at the keyboard. Passion is great - but not at the expense of your life.
Of course as someone who theoretically has a bit of a bit of a foot in both camps I’m not sure it’s an entirely fair definition - if you look at some of the highly successful gonzo journalists, Hunter S Thompson, Tom Wolfe, etc you could probably argue there was a fair bit of passion there.
Tom Wolfe in an article in the Wall Street Journal said
One by one, Marshall McLuhan’s wackiest-seeming predictions come true. Forty years ago, he said that modern communications technology would turn the young into tribal primitives who pay attention not to objective “news” reports but only to what the drums say, i.e., rumors.
And there you have blogs. The universe of blogs is a universe of rumors, and the tribe likes it that way.
Favorite blogs: Mr. Wolfe, “weary of narcissistic shrieks and baseless ‘information,’ ” says he no longer reads blogs.
Of course the writing standards for blogs are lower (heck - anyone can play!) so I guess there’s less need to be able to defend, define and explain your passion; or even write well about it.
The best thing about badly written blogs of course - is that one doesn’t have to read them, but then the same is true of a well-written but essentially dull story.
So in answer to SilkCharm
Do you want “objectivity” - stories filtered, nay watered down, for public consumption? Or do you want “passion” - stories spoken from the heart complete with emotional tugs, tirades and misspellings? Is there a place for both?
Me? I want it all. I want stories with passion - without emotional tugs, tirades and misspellings.
And anyone who regularly reads the Guardian - knows it’s possible.
