Is there really a difference between a diarist blogger and a new media blogger? And if there actually is, is that distinction significant enough particularly when it comes to credibility, truth, or plain good manners online?
In Rom Sedona’s blog entry Diarist over at Smoke.PH, she opines:
Which brings me to the ultimate difference between a diarist blogger and a new media blogger: a diarist can change whatever he said, whenever wants, with absolutely no responsibility to anyone because all he writes about – all he represents himself to be writing about – is his own take on the subject.
Hmmm… when I see the word “blogger” I think of the web. I think of things online, and imagine a rather public place.
When you express your opinion in public, how can you have “absolutely no responsibility to anyone” who reads/hears/views your changed message?
In a public setting, are we not expected to behave in a certain manner? And aren’t we expected to take responsibility for our actions and brace for the consequences that follow the things we do?
The fundamental difference between a diarist blogger and a new media blogger is that the former is trying to be low-key about the fact that things he or she publishes online can be viewed by a larger number of people.
Diarist: Old media (on paper, cassette tapes); New Media (online)
Podcaster: Old media (radio stations, cassette tapes); New Media (online)
Vlogger: Old media (TV, digicam); New Media (online)
Blogger: Old media (huh?); New Media (online)
So, if you publish anything publicly or online, be responsible for what you write, edit, record, or delete. Ultimately, you can no longer hide behind your “opinions” on the internet.
Welcome to the “new media”, diarist bloggers! 🙂