100th post!
This is my 100th post. Some of them are cheater posts - a function of the fact that I don't know my image posting software (Picasa) all that well. There were a number of posts on my journey to fatherhood, but most has been me griping about subjects that by and large only I care about. If you've been reading, thanks. If you haven't, well, you haven't missed much.
For my 100th post I wanted to revisit the subject of metablogging. I proposed the subject of metablogging as tailoring what you write to your audience. The subject has been one that I've done a lot of reflection about recently. And I still haven't determined what the right thing to do is.
My posts on Katrina deeply offended some friends with my generally uneducated comments about Katrina and disparaging remarks about their choice of vehicle. I was woefully uniformed of the mass suffering and devastation that Katrina caused. My entry was more informed from the effects that various hurricanes have had on the Florida coast where the rebuilding has generally improved the existing structures effected since they are upgraded to be better than they were pre-Hurricane. However, Katrina appears to have visited an entirely different order of devastation on the area. After all there has to be something left to improve on.
I'll concede that SUVs have their use. This is America, so you have the right to buy any vehicle that you want. And if you prefer to drive a larger vehicle, go for it. I would prefer if you didn't, but that's just my point of view as a small car driver. But small car driver and big car drivers can band together in despising sports car drivers - all the gas guzzling power of a bigger car but without the potential of purpose. Let's get 'em!
Seriously, I am a small car guy. My vehicle choices to this point (Saturn, Prius) bear that out. MPG is a major factor in my choice of vehicle (much to the chagrin of my wife). But on all issues oil-related I take the very long view. Let's pretend that there is only a finite amount of oil on the planet. That oil has a number of potential applications from combustion to condoms and is currently being used for car fuel. Eventually the planet will run out of oil. It probably won't happen in my life time and possibly might not happen in Oliver's life time. But it will eventually happen. Barring a miraculous Jetson-era explosion of technology that supplants the need for oil Oliver Agamemnon Jr. will not be able to use it for any purpose either as propellant or prophalactic.
In metablogging, I can't not think thoughts that could be offensive. Considering that my blog is supposed to be an online journal, should I only write about things about which I have a more solid opinion and factual understanding? Possibly, but this isn't journalism. Is it better to censor my posts so as not to offend my audience? Is it better to strike more moderate tone on posts that are possibly offensive? Well, why am I writing if that's the case?
I don't want to apologize for any of my posts. All of them reflect my state of mind at the time that they were composed. Could any have been better worded or expressed? Certainly. Could I have been better informed? Absolutely. Was I wrong? I don't like the use of the word "wrong" or "incorrect." Was I different? Yes, but different is not the same thing as wrong. Look at events that occurred in the past that were traumatic/horrific. Was World War II a good thing? Not if you were a Jew in the concentration camps. But if you were an Indian nationalist who wanted to be free of the yoke of Great Britain? Maybe it was. In 100 years, could a historian agree with my assertion that Katrina was good for the New Orleans area? I'd say we'll see, but I don't think that I'll live long enough to have that perspective first hand.
For my 100th post I wanted to revisit the subject of metablogging. I proposed the subject of metablogging as tailoring what you write to your audience. The subject has been one that I've done a lot of reflection about recently. And I still haven't determined what the right thing to do is.
My posts on Katrina deeply offended some friends with my generally uneducated comments about Katrina and disparaging remarks about their choice of vehicle. I was woefully uniformed of the mass suffering and devastation that Katrina caused. My entry was more informed from the effects that various hurricanes have had on the Florida coast where the rebuilding has generally improved the existing structures effected since they are upgraded to be better than they were pre-Hurricane. However, Katrina appears to have visited an entirely different order of devastation on the area. After all there has to be something left to improve on.
I'll concede that SUVs have their use. This is America, so you have the right to buy any vehicle that you want. And if you prefer to drive a larger vehicle, go for it. I would prefer if you didn't, but that's just my point of view as a small car driver. But small car driver and big car drivers can band together in despising sports car drivers - all the gas guzzling power of a bigger car but without the potential of purpose. Let's get 'em!
Seriously, I am a small car guy. My vehicle choices to this point (Saturn, Prius) bear that out. MPG is a major factor in my choice of vehicle (much to the chagrin of my wife). But on all issues oil-related I take the very long view. Let's pretend that there is only a finite amount of oil on the planet. That oil has a number of potential applications from combustion to condoms and is currently being used for car fuel. Eventually the planet will run out of oil. It probably won't happen in my life time and possibly might not happen in Oliver's life time. But it will eventually happen. Barring a miraculous Jetson-era explosion of technology that supplants the need for oil Oliver Agamemnon Jr. will not be able to use it for any purpose either as propellant or prophalactic.
In metablogging, I can't not think thoughts that could be offensive. Considering that my blog is supposed to be an online journal, should I only write about things about which I have a more solid opinion and factual understanding? Possibly, but this isn't journalism. Is it better to censor my posts so as not to offend my audience? Is it better to strike more moderate tone on posts that are possibly offensive? Well, why am I writing if that's the case?
I don't want to apologize for any of my posts. All of them reflect my state of mind at the time that they were composed. Could any have been better worded or expressed? Certainly. Could I have been better informed? Absolutely. Was I wrong? I don't like the use of the word "wrong" or "incorrect." Was I different? Yes, but different is not the same thing as wrong. Look at events that occurred in the past that were traumatic/horrific. Was World War II a good thing? Not if you were a Jew in the concentration camps. But if you were an Indian nationalist who wanted to be free of the yoke of Great Britain? Maybe it was. In 100 years, could a historian agree with my assertion that Katrina was good for the New Orleans area? I'd say we'll see, but I don't think that I'll live long enough to have that perspective first hand.
posted by mypetrock at 11:07 AM
2 Comments:
I think that pretty much every blogger has his or her readers in mind when blogging; it's part of the nature of the medium. But many bloggers, I think, eventually hit a stride where they find their voices, begin to care less about what their readers think, or begin to write for their anticipated audience.
But on to the specifics . . .
"Considering that my blog is supposed to be an online journal, should I only write about things about which I have a more solid opinion and factual understanding? Possibly, but this isn't journalism."
This is, however, one major difference between Blogger and LiveJournal. Blogger is a public arena where posts are shown on the internet for all to read. With other blogging software there's the option to keep entries private, ensuring more of a personal journal feel.
"Is it better to censor my posts so as not to offend my audience? Is it better to strike more moderate tone on posts that are possibly offensive? Well, why am I writing if that's the case?"
That's a question for each writer to answer. My personal answer is that:
1) If someone says something offensive to (or around) me, I'm likely to speak up.
2) This could end up being a positive exchange. I have posted things on online bulletin boards that offended others. They explained why what I said was so offensive/wrong/hurtful/ignorant. I either agreed with them, learned something, and kept that in mind moving forward, or I disagreed with them. Either way, I knew that certain of my opinions were likely to offend others and wrote with that awareness.
If I am a blankist and I know that my opinions *might* be offensive to some, should I write whatever I want or should I think critically about why what I'm saying might be offensive? And if it's offensive to people whose opinion means something to me, perhaps I'd better think harder about my own positions and opinions.
I hardly see moderation or consideration as censorship. I am free with my opinions (in my own blog, here, and elsewhere) but I always know that putting my thoughts out there opens me to critique from others.
"I don't want to apologize for any of my posts."
Well, you have no reason to apologize to me. If you ever meet one of the businesswomen who was trapped in the convention center (as a friend and coworker of mine nearly was) and was gang-raped by an armed band of 15-20 men, however, she might want an apology for your comment that the circumstances that led to her attack were a blessing in disguise. It's a mightly good disguise.
"Was I wrong? I don't like the use of the word "wrong" or "incorrect." Was I different? Yes, but different is not the same thing as wrong."
One of my many frustrations with our president is his seeming inability to admit when he's wrong. Just the other day, I heard him talking about what "went right and what didn't go right" (instead of what went wrong) with the hurricaine response.
Hurricaine Katrina and its aftermath are a tragedy. Some good things will come out of this tragedy, but it's still a tragedy.
I took offense at your apparently callous attitude toward the suffering going on in New Orleans, and your statements about the value of the city (founded in ignorance, in my opinion). By posting our opinions on the internet, we open ourselves to this sort of public discussion and critique.
Mr. R0ck, or may I call you My? Holy crap you write a lot! I'm a new reader and came to check it out after a few weeks and it seems like there are ten posts to read! Anyway, I think you need a little validation. After getting over the initial callousness ;) of your post on Katrina (which you admit was mostly out of ignorance), I can now see where you were coming from. If I view katrina from a million miles away, I realize that New Orleans will probably come back stronger and better. Of course it could go the other way, but given it's geographically valuable location, I'd bet on the former. The problem is most people see the million mile away view as cold and insensitive :) So maybe it's better to just say "I was wrong, it was ignorance!" than to try and defend the position. But I get it, perhaps New Orleans can benefit from a do over.
-Dynamo
Post a Comment
<< Home