How Then Shall We Blog?
3 Comments
»
In diving into the readings and video of this post's focus, I am compelled to start by discussing the topic of "newness." As we discussed the concept in class, new media is predicated on our perspective of what is new. This important point was brought to the front of my mind as I read It's the Links, Stupid. I remember using LiveJournal--not as an exciting new media form but as a fad from junior high school through early high school. Before LiveJournal, it was Xanga. Both of these offered a better form of communication--faster, and incorporating many options, as the Economist reading explains. Thus, the article's subheading perfectly sums up blogging (both the article's premise and my experience): "Blogging is just another word for having conversations."
It is a conversation, enhanced and made easier in an online setting. Email is a direct, often one to one conversation; blogging allowed my friends and I to communicate our experiences and opinions simultaneously to each other (and to anyone else who wanted to read it). It incorporates video and pictures and allowed for immediate feedback. Never did I think about the implications of me using a form of "new media," but upon further consideration I am conflictingly inclined to retroactively label it as such.
"Conflictingly inclined...?"
Seven years forward and I am not only labeling my former habit, but also reengaging and at the same time critically questioning its meaning as well as its implications. Enter Andrew Sullivan's Why I Blog. Sullivan, in comparing blogs and diaries makes a great point. Whether by accident or not, the subject of a blog is naturally the author in many cases where growth and candid opinions are displayed. We reveal our beliefs as we blog, and as blog posts accumulate over time, readers can trace our intellectual, emotional, and personal growth. I am, however, still hesitant to call all blogging "new media."
Perhaps new media is defined by how it is used. This argument was brought up in class and to be honest, I had dismissed it, thinking it was a technicality based in semantics. But if I were to only type words here, include no hyperlinks, no images or video or sound, disallowed comments, and I wrote in the same polishing way that authors write books, would this be new media? Maybe not.
Just to be safe:
In all seriousness though, imagine listening to this without seeing the video. Imagine watching the video on television. Or imaging reading a transcript of it. Our perception would be completely altered. Comparing those perceptions with what we think when we actually visit YouTube and participate in comments and make our own videos--the differences are important. Also, consider Sullivan's and others' points about the openness of new media. Here we have a young teenager telling us what to do to be "successful." This is an example of supreme accessibility to be sure.
Perhaps I don't need the inclusion of a video just to be "new media" but it raises important points, the least of which is, how does one write new media?
It is a conversation, enhanced and made easier in an online setting. Email is a direct, often one to one conversation; blogging allowed my friends and I to communicate our experiences and opinions simultaneously to each other (and to anyone else who wanted to read it). It incorporates video and pictures and allowed for immediate feedback. Never did I think about the implications of me using a form of "new media," but upon further consideration I am conflictingly inclined to retroactively label it as such.
"Conflictingly inclined...?"
Seven years forward and I am not only labeling my former habit, but also reengaging and at the same time critically questioning its meaning as well as its implications. Enter Andrew Sullivan's Why I Blog. Sullivan, in comparing blogs and diaries makes a great point. Whether by accident or not, the subject of a blog is naturally the author in many cases where growth and candid opinions are displayed. We reveal our beliefs as we blog, and as blog posts accumulate over time, readers can trace our intellectual, emotional, and personal growth. I am, however, still hesitant to call all blogging "new media."
Perhaps new media is defined by how it is used. This argument was brought up in class and to be honest, I had dismissed it, thinking it was a technicality based in semantics. But if I were to only type words here, include no hyperlinks, no images or video or sound, disallowed comments, and I wrote in the same polishing way that authors write books, would this be new media? Maybe not.
Just to be safe:
In all seriousness though, imagine listening to this without seeing the video. Imagine watching the video on television. Or imaging reading a transcript of it. Our perception would be completely altered. Comparing those perceptions with what we think when we actually visit YouTube and participate in comments and make our own videos--the differences are important. Also, consider Sullivan's and others' points about the openness of new media. Here we have a young teenager telling us what to do to be "successful." This is an example of supreme accessibility to be sure.
Perhaps I don't need the inclusion of a video just to be "new media" but it raises important points, the least of which is, how does one write new media?
New Media, New Writing
I cannot possibly comment on Sullivan's article without a consideration on how one writes new media text. The most pressing questions since I began to critically look at new media have been of style, credibility, and the meaning of success. Sullivan blogs in a way that writers for other media would call careless, at least. He savors the immediacy of blogging and loves that its style is "more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive." This brings me to my final questions--for now. How can I have any credibility when I have not built it through previous legitimate work? Is it even possible to build credibility in a media that, by its nature allows anyone and everyone to voice an opinion and never counts a voice out? From our first day as writers we are taught to form a concrete thesis and prove it in a very technical way in order to earn a reader's belief. We are taught to be patient in editing our work. In a participatory media where it is encouraged to speak informally and accept accidents, how does one truly succeed? Perhaps I will discover what exactly achieving means in a new media sense...Perhaps I should think about a regimen of uploading pictures with my blog address on them and publishing instructional YouTube videos.
....perhaps not.
Subscribe by RSS