Problems journalists have when blogging

I am not sure why but I find your post amusing… Maybe it’s the comment on Journalists’ thinking it’s their birthright? I am not a journalist and I can tell you it seems like a big "no no" after all I don't want to know a writers opinion unless I am reading an opinion column.

Granted news "should" in fact be objective without bias. I hear you have to give your sources to the editor including getting the resources checked umpteen times.

So to think that Journalists are having a hard time understanding "Blogging" or how liberating it is to write whatever you want whenever you want should be a walk in the park.

I personally manage and write for over 15 blogs, I love writing. Self-expression sure, liberating, ranting, absolutely... I don't know why Global stardom or money shouldn't be part of this equation?

I felt an anger rush as I read Rosenberg's quote. Although I am not sure what his statement will sound like in the context of his writing, I cannot disagree more with it.

Self-expression is an essential part of journalism. Especially, if we talk about feature stories and Op-Eds. That is why, I believe, blogging comes naturally to journalists.

I have to disagree with Magdalena--blogging does NOT come naturally to most journalsts BECAUSE many are used to writing in a particular way. All that "who what when where why" is not part of blogging. (although, as I've said on my blog, journalists are great at Twitter--and are most personal there w/o compromising professionalism.)

To paraphrase you a bit, Steve, self-expression isn't part of the professional milieu of journalism, yet, as a blogger, I know that it is integral to what I do. But self-experssion, as so many of us know, isn't a money-maker. That is, unless you happen to be one of those self-absorbed memoir writes whose books sound so often like records stuck in the same groove. And are, ultimately, far more boring than even the most self-absorbed blogger. But that's what the publishing industry wants...

Over my close to 5 years of blogging, my most popular blogging has *always* been blogging that was self-expression--usually about personal matters. When I began to write more "professional" on The Constant Observer, I found myself getting increasingly bored with blogging. I didn't have the connection with readers, and possibly, in part, because I wasn't a "professional" in the sense of, say a journalist, so my opinions appealed only to a limited audience. IMO, I'm just someone who has, occasionally, keen insights, lots of good opinions, and stands by what she says when she slings a good barb (and is transparent about it.) While The Constant Observer has, in some respects, helped me professionally, it hasn't had the same level of emotional reward--for me as a writer and for the readers--as my personal blog did. Yet now, for me to write an intimately personal blog again might damage me professionally (adulthood is not a neat and tidy thing, where we're living out moral absolutes.)

Hence, IMO, true blogger are different from journalists, and because journalists are writers in a public sense, even what a journalists self-publishes can be colored by his/her professional life. This is not to say that journalists can't have the level of self-experssion as many bloggers, but there are different consequences to their professional lives. Yet, if a journalist truly desires self-expression as some of the best bloggers, then there's always the "anonymous" blog. In the world of self-expression, anonymous blogging isn't an awful thing. Bloggers know that, when it comes to self-expression, it is the writing that is naked and transparent, which means the identity doesn't have to be.

I have been a journalist for close to 30 years in public radio, newspapers and Web sites. I interviewed for a blogger position at a major Web site and was told by the managing editor that she tended not to hire veteran reporters because they are too tied to "writing a news story." I found that incredibly condescending. I think that journalists who don't share their opinions in their writing still serve a valuable purpose. I agree with Stephen Baker's comment that readers want to hear about the subjects I write about, not about me. Nonetheless, I have gradually modified my writing style to include more of my "voice" in blog posts I write (for sites other than the one whose ME talked down to me)today. But I still check my facts, seek out both sides of the story and make sure I spell people's names correctly.

The attraction of blogging for me is none of the above.

I write a blog (under a pseudonym) that is intensely personal because I want to connect with others with an exchange so intesely intimate and honest that it would raise eyebrows professionally.

I twitter when I want to "seed" information to others in the most timely manner possible.

I use social networking media to have fun with long-distance family & friends.

I write on CNN to make my voice heard on topics of importance to me.

I use all of the above and membership in topic specific group forums to attempt an honest assessment of public topics.

I can BE very honest and upfront while contributing in most of these forums simply BECAUSE I do not have a responsibility to any institution that can hobble my opinions or silence my voice. As members of the business world (read: currently employed), our thoughts and voices are owned by the company we work for, which does not lend itself well to an open, honest and opinion-laden outlook on life.