Comments on: Blogging vs. Journalism Debate is O-V-E-R http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/blogging-vs-journalism-debate-is-o-v-e-r/ Learning with the Read/Write Web Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:36:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Will R. http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/blogging-vs-journalism-debate-is-o-v-e-r/comment-page-1/#comment-1126 Will R. Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:57:02 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/?p=1376#comment-1126 <a></a>Thanks for posting Laura. Jumbled is the right word for all of this, and I love it. What's new is being able to sort it out with people like you and thousands of others who are up to the same thing. That concept is old too, but we just never knew they were out there before. Now we do, and that is very cool. Best, Will Thanks for posting Laura. Jumbled is the right word for all of this,
and I love it. What’s new is being able to sort it out with people like
you and thousands of others who are up to the same thing. That concept
is old too, but we just never knew they were out there before. Now we
do, and that is very cool.

Best, Will

]]> By: Laura Pearle http://weblogg-ed.com/2005/blogging-vs-journalism-debate-is-o-v-e-r/comment-page-1/#comment-1125 Laura Pearle Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:37:52 +0000 http://weblogg-ed.com/?p=1376#comment-1125 <a></a>There are some posts that might inform this discussion a bit more.  I've been thinking about what Karen Schneider has been writing from the Harvard conference (somewhat incoherently due to it being "blogged in real time" - which is another way of saying I'm taking notes on-line and making them public): <a href="http://freerangelibrarian.com/" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://freerangelibrarian.com/" rel="nofollow">http://freerangelibrarian.com/</a></a> has the latest, updated regularly.  One thing that struck me was her comment that when librarians said "users", journalists were surprised.  What else are readers of newspapers/magazines/blogs or viewers of tv than users? The other posts that have got me thinking are on <a href="http://ghw.wordherders.net/archives/003430.html" rel="nofollow">Thanks for Not Being a Zombie</a>.  In the first post, he writes "Being a good writer is not necessarily the same thing as being a good blogger, although the two categories are not mutually exlusive."  In his second post, he adds "no form of communication is ever truly new or truly unique. New forms tend to be conceived at first in terms of the old, as I've <a href="http://ghw.wordherders.net/archives/000234.html" rel="nofollow">written before</a>. And old forms <a href="http://ghw.wordherders.net/archives/000260.html" rel="nofollow">are reconceived</a> in the face of the new."  Right now, my thoughts on this are very jumbled but given the purpose of this blog, I thought others might take this under consideration as well. There are some posts that might inform this discussion a bit
more.  I’ve been thinking about what Karen Schneider has been
writing from the Harvard conference (somewhat incoherently due to it
being “blogged in real time” – which is another way of saying I’m
taking notes on-line and making them public): http://freerangelibrarian.com/
has the latest, updated regularly.  One thing that struck me was
her comment that when librarians said “users”, journalists were
surprised.  What else are readers of newspapers/magazines/blogs or
viewers of tv than users?

The other posts that have got me thinking are on Thanks for Not Being a Zombie. 
In the first post, he writes “Being a good writer is not necessarily
the same thing as being a good
blogger, although the two categories are not mutually exlusive.” 
In his second post, he adds “no form of communication is ever truly new
or truly unique. New forms
tend to be conceived at first in terms of the old, as I’ve written before. And old forms are reconceived
in the face of the new.”  Right now, my thoughts on this are very
jumbled but given the purpose of this blog, I thought others might take
this under consideration as well.

]]>