Blogging Boosts Credibility?
Do you (would you) trust a journalist more if he or she blogs?
Seriously, weigh in here. For me, this just doesn't compute. Thinking quickly, I'm not sure how many of the reporters whom I most admire blog (at least regularly, or in the mode that I think of as blogging), or, if they're from the past, would have done any such thing.
You know, I don't really care if journalists are "sharers," or extroverts, or comfortingly vulnerable. I'd take smart, shrewd, widely and well read, and intellectually and ethically rigorous over friendly any day. And I'd definitely prefer a healthy skepticism of trendiness over an unthinking embrace of the "therapeutic culture," for example, obsessed as it is with feelings over facts, reactions over analyses, opinion over data.
In short, I don't want my journalists huggable, I want 'em credible, and far from the former building up the latter, I think--if deliberately cultivated or worried over, as some sort of goal in and of itself--the first quality is much more likely to compromise the requirements for achieving the latter.
What about you?
Seriously, weigh in here. For me, this just doesn't compute. Thinking quickly, I'm not sure how many of the reporters whom I most admire blog (at least regularly, or in the mode that I think of as blogging), or, if they're from the past, would have done any such thing.
Vulnerability. It's a good thing. It's what people need to establish healthy relationships, and it's why journalists (among others) should blog.
...
What's so great about vulnerability? To be vulnerable is to have your defenses down. Whether this is in a relationship or at work, it usually leads to better communication. Often you find that you didn't need the defenses in the first place. They just got in the way.
You know, I don't really care if journalists are "sharers," or extroverts, or comfortingly vulnerable. I'd take smart, shrewd, widely and well read, and intellectually and ethically rigorous over friendly any day. And I'd definitely prefer a healthy skepticism of trendiness over an unthinking embrace of the "therapeutic culture," for example, obsessed as it is with feelings over facts, reactions over analyses, opinion over data.
In short, I don't want my journalists huggable, I want 'em credible, and far from the former building up the latter, I think--if deliberately cultivated or worried over, as some sort of goal in and of itself--the first quality is much more likely to compromise the requirements for achieving the latter.
What about you?
