*sigh*
I have no political bumper stickers on my car.
I have no political buttons on my blog.
It's not that I don't believe in anything, I guess I just tend not to want to clutter up everyone's life by forcing my beliefs into theirs. After all, while I know there are a few of you out there who read my odd ramblings and like my nail polish (this week's color: OPI's Outback Aphrodesiac), I'd rather have buttons that show my preference for, I don't know, musicals over war movies, or the 1920s over the 1960s, or crime dramas over reality shows.
That said, I'm on the fence about something here.
If I were the single-most read knitting blog every day, would I change the way I wrote, how I wrote, or what I wrote?
It's sort of like that whole Charles Barkley thing, where he said he was not a role model.
In Charles' case, he was in the position where his very job made him a role model. And yet he was technically only paid to play basketball.
But people don't blog for money, they do it to, well, do it, I guess. Although there is a certain hierarchy in the blog world and at this point maybe there's some fame involved, a level of queen-bee-ness, if you will. Does that mean there is a responsibility to what is said in one's blog?
In two recent cases, there were hurt feelings. In both, it was merely opinions reflected. However, in one, it was opinions that the entire readership might have interest in. In the other, only about 22 people had an interest in what was said, and those 22 people have a group email address. The other 21 people would have much more limited readership had they posted something similar on their blogs. Could the extreme negativity not have been saved for a group email, instead of a blog that hundreds (or more) people read, every day?
Or should the number of the readership not affect what is posted on the blog?
I guess every time I conclusively feel that someone with that great a readership should have more of a responsibility, I then think that person can do what they want to.
In this case, maybe the discussion would have been dealt with more tactfully offline.
Thoughts?
I have no political buttons on my blog.
It's not that I don't believe in anything, I guess I just tend not to want to clutter up everyone's life by forcing my beliefs into theirs. After all, while I know there are a few of you out there who read my odd ramblings and like my nail polish (this week's color: OPI's Outback Aphrodesiac), I'd rather have buttons that show my preference for, I don't know, musicals over war movies, or the 1920s over the 1960s, or crime dramas over reality shows.
That said, I'm on the fence about something here.
If I were the single-most read knitting blog every day, would I change the way I wrote, how I wrote, or what I wrote?
It's sort of like that whole Charles Barkley thing, where he said he was not a role model.
In Charles' case, he was in the position where his very job made him a role model. And yet he was technically only paid to play basketball.
But people don't blog for money, they do it to, well, do it, I guess. Although there is a certain hierarchy in the blog world and at this point maybe there's some fame involved, a level of queen-bee-ness, if you will. Does that mean there is a responsibility to what is said in one's blog?
In two recent cases, there were hurt feelings. In both, it was merely opinions reflected. However, in one, it was opinions that the entire readership might have interest in. In the other, only about 22 people had an interest in what was said, and those 22 people have a group email address. The other 21 people would have much more limited readership had they posted something similar on their blogs. Could the extreme negativity not have been saved for a group email, instead of a blog that hundreds (or more) people read, every day?
Or should the number of the readership not affect what is posted on the blog?
I guess every time I conclusively feel that someone with that great a readership should have more of a responsibility, I then think that person can do what they want to.
In this case, maybe the discussion would have been dealt with more tactfully offline.
Thoughts?
posted by itgirl at 2:41 PM
3 Comments:
Gee, I wish I knew what the flap was about, but then I'm like that. Actually, I think that no matter if a blog is read by one or millions, the writer has no obligation to anyone but her/himself. If I don't like what someone writes on their blog, I don't go there anymore. Easy. If someone doesn't like what I write on my blog and they don't come to it anymore, that's fine with me. Bottom line, it's your blog, write what you want. JMO
When I started my blog, I was encouraged to do so by a lady who told me "write it for you. If others like it they will read it; if they don't, they won't. But it's your blog, so if you amuse yourself then it's achieved its purpose." I think that the purpose of a blog is to write what you like, and if people don't like it they should go away (and talk about you behind your back). But that's just me. And I have no idea what you're talking about anyhow, so I should just shut up.
I agree that you should have the right to post whatever you want on your blog, but I think you need to decide something about the format of your blog before you start. Do you want a huge readership where hundreds of people read your blog every day? Or do you want to say what you really feel? I would hope that most people would say what they really feel and then let the readership fall where it may, but I think it is also natural to want people to read your work. So I am sure most people alter what they are thinking to be funnier/more politically correct/hipper in order to gain readers and try not to offend anyone.
But then, it doesn't matter what you say - someone will always disagree with it.
Dani
www3.sympatico.ca/daniwarren/knitstitchclick.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home