WHAT'S IN NAME: WRITER, BLOGGER, JOURNALIST, ETC.
While the much anticipated blog beef to end all blog beefs (Kris Ex vs. Hashim vs. B.C.) blew over before it ever really started (though I do have to give credit here: news release dissing is some next level sh--, no sarcasmo), there's been some interesting conversations that have cropped up in the wake. Here's some background reading for you to start with:
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...
Thoughts:
1) I don't ever describe myself as a "hip hop journalist/writer/blogger." I write for a living, I enjoy writing - these things don't require a prefix. I don't have a problem with those who self-describe themselves as a "hip-hop blogger" or whatever - but it's usually not a term that I see people put on themselves - it's more often ascribed to them.
2) I don't think there's a difference between writing and blogging. Blogging is writing, period. I got my start as a "writer" back in the pre-WWW days of USENET groups, posting reviews and opinions to places like rec.music.hip-hop and alt.rap. I didn't think of it as "writing," back then but that experience was essentially like what blogging is today: self-publishing via an online medium. Those who claim that blogging "isn't really writing" are simply being elitist snobs.
(This said - blogging rarely engenders good writing - but I've already spoken on that before.)
3) The difference that writing professionally is A) $$$ and B) editing (and if you're blogging for pay, you may not have to worry about editing). These boil down to simple accountability. Once you start getting paid to write - including paid to blog - this means that you're acquiring something that can also be taken away ($$$). As such, most professional writers have to be concerned about how their content is received. In contrast, most amateur bloggers are only beholden to themselves.
4) Hashim, in the comments section of My Stunted Growth's post points out that if there are professional writers who resent bloggers it's because they presume bloggers just want to be pros. Hashim argues that many bloggers want nothing to do with professional writing. I would actually disagree with that - if someone offered to pay you to continue to blog what you already blog about, I very much doubt that many folks would spit at the opportunity.
Perhaps what Hashim is getting at is the difference between print and blogging. There's some bloggers who want to transition into print and others who could give a rat's ass about print writing. And frankly, I don't blame the latter. I think the good point that Bomani makes in his post is that a lot of professional writers turned to blogging to escape all the b.s. of the print world.
That's certainly a big reason why I blog - to have a medium that I control. I read this in Bomani's comments - Spider Goodlegs (yeah, the Mindset is everywhere) wrote to say that, "sovereignty is the envy of all writers" and she's goddamn right. That's what every writer - regardless of medium - dreams about: the unfettered ability to speak your mind without fear of censorship or reprisal.
6) However, the irony of the blogosphere, and this goes back to MSG's post, is that most bloggers (myself too at times) gleefully stomp on sovereignty by refusing to allow any disagreeable comment/opinion to escape scorn and ridicule. There's a certain bloggger mentality where they think their purpose is to keep everyone else in check. As such, while blogging may allow print writers to escape some rigors (psycho editors, fact-checkers, etc.) you simply are trading them in for new rigors (getting hated on my legions of anonymous bloggers).
By the way, before I forget, while I think My Stunted Growth makes some good points about the ability for critics to themselves take criticism, it's a little ironic that s/he's writing about this in the context of saying that (professional) critics shouldn't criticize (blogging) critics who criticize (professional) critics. If criticism is open to all, then shouldn't bloggers be open to having their criticism criticized? Seems to me that bloggers are notoriously sensitive to being criticized as much as anyone else.
7) This brings me to what I think is the biggest difference between print and blogging - and what aggravates me the most. You can write a scathing, even profane letter to the editor at a magazine or newspaper but they don't allow you to write in anonymously. You have to give up your name and city at the very least. Blogging, in this case, is less like print and far more like talk radio: it affords a level of anonymity that allows people to viciously attack others without any accountability.
I might write a scathing review of an album but at least my name's attached to it. I take responsibility for my opinions and people can (and do) call me on it. Most bloggers? They say things they would never say to someone's face and on top of that, can hide behind the safety of the internet curtain. It's cowardly. People who claim that blogging is meant to provide a "safe space" violate the spirit of that space when they're online, dumping on people, then running and hiding like roaches in the light. I have zero respect for that.
I'll say this much - and this may seem like a surprising compliment for me to pay - but whatever issues I might have with B.C., at least he's willing to put his name to what he writes. His site is popular not just because of his opinions - though that's obviously part of it - but also because he puts himself out there as a person and not some message board-type toy who only writes under "hiphophaterplayer331." I can't say that about most of the wanna-bees trying to bite his style but unwilling to put their real name on it.
The conversation continues in the comments but I wanted to add a few thoughts.
1) When I say "real name" - I am saying "your legal name" but as Jay Smooth points out, a pseudonym fits somewhere in between, especially if you've developed a reputation in the public going by that pseudonym. So, for example, Davey D obviously was not born with the name Davey D but his identity in public is as Davey D and that public identity creates a form of accountability. However, the line between a pseudonym as nom de plume and an internet handle to acquire anonymity may be thin, but I still think there's a difference.
2) I'd disagree with Hashim who says that blogging is not a medium one controls. Yes, it's very much open to feedback but bottomline, unless you're doing something patently illegal, no one can shut you down, change your content. That is a fundamental difference from writing for a publication. It makes every difference.
3) Just to clarify: I don't think bloggers would give up independence for money. But if a blogger is offered the opportunity to write for money WITH independence, who's going to say no? My point being: I don't think bloggers reject the idea of doing what they do as professionals (i.e. being paid for their work) - but Hashim is correct in pointing out that the real issue here is independence.
4) Hashim also writes that "blogging is a conversation." And upon reflection, I would agree with that, especially compared to print writing which does tend to be more "one way." I need to dwell on this more because I think bloggers both care and don't care about what they write but I can't quite figure out how to break that down that seeming contradiction.
<< Home