Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Bloggocks

I don't know who it was who came up with the word 'bloggocks' (though this post from Septicisle may well be where I saw it first) but I think it's a nice way of looking at the slightly navel-fluff-picking tendency of bloggers and journalists, blog-journalists, journalist-bloggers, media bloggers, blournalists and joggers* to peer at each other suspiciously like chimps on opposite sides of the same enclosure.

Some of this happened at the Newsfutures Bristol Blogging Extravaganza** last weekend, but it was rather pleasant to see a good deal more consensus than you might have expected between journos and bloggers and all the shades of grey (or brown) in between. You can read more reactions about the event itself and bloggery in general from Jamie Thunder and from the Bristol Editor.

The whole debate is, I think, shifting a bit, and has been shifting for a while. I think a lot of people recognise now that not all bloggers are newsgatherers (and neither are all journalists); that not all newsgathering is done to an ethical code, regardless of whether the person doing it is a member of a profession or a person sitting at home at their keyboard; that there's good and bad writing in all media; that a blog is just a medium, like a newspaper is, just a slightly different one; and that we don't really make an enormous amount of progress unless and until we talk to one another. I think the event was excellent for getting some of the latter done, and should be commended for that.

Where perhaps there wasn't quite enough focus - and as a participant I am as responsible for this as anyone else - is that it was a bit too journalismy and not bloggy enough for my tastes. A lot of blogging doesn't have anything to do with journalism at all, and is quite delighted not to; I suppose the media blogs (such as this one) get some attention from the world of journalism because they're writing about something they know about - but this blog, as well as many others, doesn't just talk about 'what's in the papers'. There's a lot more to it than that.

So what's good about blogging? Well, the medium has many advantages, I think. There's no deadlines, no need to write for an audience (although some do, of course), no need to try and please all the people all of the time. If you're obsessed with stats there are things you can do to haul people in and get traffic up; if you just want the writing to speak for itself, you can do that too. As a writer in a bigger publication you're never sure who's reading your article and who's skipping merrily past it on the way to the football results or the wordsearch; as a blogger you know that quite a lot of people are turning up because they want to read what you have to say. That seems a more gratifying way of communicating than just never knowing - and of course you get the feedback of comments and interaction through social media as well to add to the argument, help you and add to what you've said... I know that not all online commenting is much more than a soup of scum trying to shout down the debate, but I'm lucky here to have readers who, I think, want to try and add rather than take away, the vast majority of the time.

What else does blogging do? It's an immediate form of communication. I can get my thoughts out as soon as possible, but at the same time verify a few facts here and there to make sure I've got it as right as I can get it. Also, if I think I've got a great story coming about something, but it turns out to be nothing, I don't have that pressure of having to produce something - I can just choose to write nothing instead. There is quality control of a sort, though it's self-regulating, and it will never replace (and doesn't try to replace) the idea of proofing, subediting and so on that goes on at a big publication.

Why do I love blogging? Because it brings a form of communication that can challenge me as a writer, and allow me to do a little bit more than letting off steam about stuff that has riled me, interested me or disappointed me. And the more you write, the better you get at it. Not this post obviously - it's rambling, to be kind - but most of the time. I think. Hope.

Maybe there used to be more bloggocks chucked around then than there is now because it was a relatively new medium, and people tried too hard to make political blogging out to be the king of all blogging. It isn't. There are wonderful blogs about all subjects, and a lot of duff ones on politics; the important thing is how effectively and entertainingly the writers are communicating, I think.

In a lot of ways I feel quite inspired to keep going, though. I do think it's important. Not just because if I don't, they will; but because I'm enjoying it more than ever. And that's something that pleases me greatly.

* I have made some of these terms up.

** It was not really called this.

No related posts.