Tough call. (on Blogging . . . )

Because it's fun to reduce complex problems to two types, I'll propose that the two ways of blogging are pseudo-citizen journalism and journalling. Being a journalist and being a journaller are very, very different -- though I like to consider myself both, hence the first-person narrative so pluripotent in my writings here.

That said, I hope to be first and foremost a journalist, a purveyor of facts and, above all else, accountable. That's why I have my full name on my journal; that's why it's open to the public. I hope that nothing I write is taken as the truth -- though usually that wouldn't much matter, as the vast majority of what comes out of my fingers are personal musings -- but I still don't believe in the "free market of ideas" to the extent that people should be allowed to distort the truth and hope that it will be corrected by the larger blogging community. While I may be idealistic about certain parts of journalism, namely the potential for objective coverage, I'm not comfortable going that far.

That said, I'm also not comfortable with self-censorship: this, journal though it may be, is still more substantial than a personal notebook held to my chest. If I have personal opinions on things, they should be made available, if only to force me to explain my convictions and promote more openness and accountability. It's unfortunate that this isn't demanded of me as a journalist, period, though it tacitly is of many mainstream journalist-bloggers. To that end, there needs to be more analysis and less commentary; more substantial discussion and less faux news; more questions and fewer assumptions.

It's a tough call, but at the end I'll choose journalism over journalling, and hope that the weak attempts at writing in my blog can help to improve, not detract from, my credentials as a journalist.