Why Blogging Isn’t The Same As Article Writing

I read an interesting article in The Atlantic this week by Andrew Sullivan about blogging – why we do it (or more to the point, why he does it). He made the point that blogging is not like article writing in that your audience is not once-removed from you. If they don’t like what you’ve written, you’re going to hear about it in spades and without the buffer of an editor. He made several other points, but that one stuck with me. For me, it’s the differentiator between blogging and writing for print. And there is a segment of the population who don’t get it, haven’t gotten it, and will never get it.

These are the ones Deb Ng talked about in her post this week about blogging for someone who doesn’t know how to blog. It was great seeing her rant because A) in general, Deb doesn’t rant, B) I didn’t feel so alone in the ranting department, and C) she was spot on.

The trouble is some people are approaching blogging like they’re approaching article writing. Only blogs aren’t articles – they’re mini-sagas, journals, communities, and they’re more immediate and personal (and personable). You build a blog and you build your own blogger credentials through your online blogging network. You can position yourself as an expert, as a moderator, as a pain in the arse, whatever your particular point of view requires. Article writing – hey, you might be able to gain some expertise, but just try discussing that article with readers when you’re issues-removed from it once it’s published and you have to go through an editor to respond.

It’s changing writing, but not all of writing. We’ll still need information without the discussion/debate. We’ll still want to sit down with a magazine and really savor someone’s talent, skill, and labor. But it’s making us more accountable for our research, our ideas, and our conjectures. In my view, that’s going to strengthen us as professionals.

What do you think?