Reality Blogging

Will the real blogger please stand up?

by j. brotherlove

Prime delivers a great post on the new wave of blogging and the discomfort he has with cyber personas that drastically differ from offline personalities. As the blogosphere continues to shrink, more bloggers will meet in person. How will the “real” person compare to the image they created on their blog?

This is a topic I discuss with other veteran bloggers periodically offline because frankly, a lot of what I read is bullshit. I say that out of love. I call it bullshit because I know the person blogging or know someone else who knows the facts and things just don’t add up. Which, puts me in an interesting space. Does it matter? Should I care? Yes and, yes. Like Prime, I want to be able to trust the writer behind the words or the intent of the post.

“As blogging has matured, almost overnight, into a mainstream pastime, I now find myself analyzing blog content from a perspective of intent, looking to answer the question of why do people blog?”

I understand why people are attracted to traffic and comments. We all are, to some extent, or we wouldn’t write online. People like attention; they want to be popular or feel important. But honestly, the quickest way for me to stop reading a site is when I sense the writer is a fake. When I sense the words are just slapped on the screen or a story is distorted for shits and giggles, I move on.

Don’t get me wrong, I like to laugh, waste time, and poke fun like most people. I like to mix it up. However, I don’t subscribe to blatant, mean-spirited posts and comments about other bloggers or find it productive to read rants about everything, everyday, out of sheer boredom. Endless “I am so bad ass, nobody better fuck with me” posts or accounts from a person who projects the story as fact when it’s actually fabricated are blogwaste. I can read a novel if I want fiction.

So when Prime suggests this is “reality Internet”, I have to agree that it is. Many of the new crop of personal blogs have the same type of disassociated, entitlement, communication and insecurity issues rampant on a typical episode of The Real World (especially, this season); people are people, after all. However, more troubling, this Reality Blogging™ also has the same air of “Look ma, I’m on TV the Internet!” mixed with a constant awareness that everything they do is on display for the world - and they play it up for ratings. Some maintain they are just telling the truth others are afraid to tell. But this “truth” is usually less of a self-revelation than an opportunity to rip on somebody else.

Mind you, if I shelled out every, dirty secret from my house, or latest sexual conquest or what I really think of people I work with, this space would probably be more entertaining. But there are enough sites doing that. Besides, is “blogging without fear of consequence” necessarily more honest or just another way of hiding behind a different kind of mask? The truth is, we have to temper the things we say to others based on the medium and the audience.

In blogs we have control of the medium but none over the audience. What you write today can easily kick you in the ass next week, month or year. Anyone who has blogged on a more personal note has dealt with this system of cause and effect. Blogging without responsibility is not only a poor excuse for self-expression; it can be hazardous to your life. Ask Wood. Ask Karsh.

I censor the content on my blog to protect my friends (some who are bloggers) and my relationship with Loverboy. I’m also conscious not to write negative comments about specific people I encounter during this highly-Googlized age. It’s just not worth it.

Questionably, the safest route with online writing is to blog about non-personal topics. This is how original blogs were structured; today’s flavor is more akin to online journaling (even if they are made up). Writing industry, musical or political blogs works very well for some people. However, honest communication is what attracted me to online journaling and blogging in the first place. Nine years ago, when I was going through a difficult time in my life, the raw emotions I saw on the computer screen and the desire to connect with like-minded individuals or an understanding soul is what sucked me in. I want more of that type of expression.

The bottom line is people have different ways of expressing themselves and interpreting “blogging”. That’s fine with me; there’s more than enough bandwidth to go around. I just ask that you balance what is entertaining with a sense of respect for your web audience and use more than a drop or two of honesty about yourself. Don’t expect any hits from me if you miss my point.

* STANDING OVATION *

Very well said.

“honest communication”

That sums it up for me. On all my spots (the main “blog”, my writing site and my photoblog) I’m striving for honest communication. Sometimes that communication takes the form of fiction on my writing site but if it’s on my main blog then it’s true. I just don’t see the point otherwise. I try to be as honest as I can and to be as much of myself as I can because I want that honest communication.

So you know I have to comment on this statement including my blog: “Blogging without responsibility is not only a poor excuse for self-expression; it can be hazardous to your life. Ask Wood. Ask Karsh.”

I wouldn’t call what happened in lieu of my site “hazardous to my life”. An ill-timed instance, yes, but not an escape plan I hadn’t already hashed out myself. It’s no secret I planned to leave that job; this just came a little sooner than expected. Was I responsible for what I wrote? Of course, and I still am. But I wouldn’t call it a “poor excuse for self-expression”.

It’s just another way of saying “honest communication”.

karsh, you are always welcome here. But, just so you (and others) understand, this post is not about you - or Wood. This issue is larger than one or two bloggers.

“Hazardous” may be somewhat of a hyperbole but, semantics aside, I would have have to say the examples I linked to would be considered irresponsible by most; or at the very least, shortsighted.

As for the “poor excuse for self-expression” part, that’s my opinion. I apologize if you felt targeted by that. Although, since you brought it up, I will say I think you are far more talented than you express on your site.

I wish you future success with your “escape plan”.

Interesting post. Maybe that’s why my blog seems so boring in comparison.
It’s about a real person dealing with everyday realife issues.

Thanks for the post, and articulating some thoughts that I’ve considered.

Apparently there is an unseen, synergistic flow across the bandwidth. Several times, I’ve grappled with issues and pointed and clicked my way to blogosphere. Voila! The same subject was being discussed.

This is another such case, with you and Mike playing my devil’s advocate. My blog is very new; but I’m an old media guy, not necessarily comfortable with the format. I’m used to being behind the scenes, writing or producing something and getting feedback later. This format lends itself to real-time discussion. Often, I find myself in extended IM convos with blog readers who want to talk about me and not my blog. I’m not used to that.

Therefore, I’m in agreement with your point in re limitations. I present one part of my life. I can’t/don’t blog about friends, and I can’t/don’t extensively blog about dates and sex. Maybe I would in a different format.

Thanks for the discussion.

funny…everyone Imeet offline has been scarily just like their online persona. Maybe I just talk to the right people.

I guess I won’t be getting any hits from you because I am not sure what your point is. When the real blogger stands up, how will you know? I ask, because according to you, when someone is openly raw and “honest” about particular topics like sex for example (I have a sex blog fyi) then that blogger is STILL hiding behind a mask? Or when Karsh is openly honest about his job, he should’ve thought about it first, because it has some real-life dangerous consequences.

So I am forced to ask, what honesty are you calling for?

Your’s is a a critique not of the blogger—but of humanity. A really great book by a guy named Goffman called “The Presentation of the Everyday Self” gets into these notions of realness and personna. He says that people go through life wearing different hats: father, son, friend, activist, cook, canoist, flute player, sexual being, computer programmer, bottom, undercover blogger—and depending on when people see you they will experience you wearing one, two, or three different hats. But you are NEVER wearing all of your hats at once.

So if a son never sees and experiences the canoist in his father—was the father somehow less real? Because some bloggers choose not to discuss sex on their sites does that diminish their reality? Or make them more authentic?

Again, I am not sure what you’re calling for. On one hand you argue against people writing malicious posts just for the fun of it—I feel you 100%. On another hand you claim you want honest communication—but then you promote and recognize the need for some type of responsible censorship.

These are tough issues to grapple with and there are no easy solutions. Especially because I think we all grapple with what we are going to reveal to our blog audiencence. But I think we need to think about what it means to be honest and real—or else we’ll never know when the real bloggers are standing.

Bernard Bradshaw
Sex and the Second City.com

When I began blogging in December 2003, I was so unsure of what to write, that I was a bit scatter-brained about the topics I’d feature. I was also under the impression other people, even close friends, would be reading the blog and thus I wouldn’t post as honestly as I could’ve.

I’ve since learned that they are not reading and, unless asked, aren’t going to read it. This has freed me to discover a more personal blogging expression, while keeping my actual job, actual friend’s names (those without blogs), and my partner out of it.

I have to agree with Bernard Bradshaw (and posted similar thoughts on Prime’s blog). We will never see all sides of any individual in any one situation, and just because their blog reveals one side, doesn’t mean that is the only side or the truthful side or the untruthful side.

When I use to do HIV outreach, we had an expression, “Meet people where they are.” We meant that literally and figuratively. We had to go to where they were physically in order to reach them (they weren’t coming to us) and accept them and their lifestyle as it was and not require them to change before attempting to help them.

In the blogosphere I accept people as they are. If your site portrays you one way, then that is the way I will interact with you. If I meet you offline and you are another way, then I will adjust accordingly.

We are all who we are, nothing more, nothing less.

You’re right, Bernard, I address several issues in this post and can understand how that may be confusing. I am calling for bloggers to take accountability for their writing, and to understand their words have consequences.

I mentioned self-censorship to explain the practicality of restricting your writing to subjects that won’t come back to haunt you. Example: Years ago, I wrote of a sexual event in graphic detail that was very popular. Those posts were read by people I never expected would read it. Although I told the truth, relationships were compromised, feelings were hurt, etc.

Whether you write about sex, your job, friends, pets or the weather, their is a responsibility to respect the subjects of your writing. I’m cautioning bloggers to think about what they are posting into this very public and very searchable forum.

As for “honest communication”, we can debate the gray area of perception but, I am not addressing that. I’m addressing bloggers who purposely mislead readers to elicit certain reactions or hits based on a lie. It’s akin to listing yourself as a college graduate on your resume when you only attended one semester.

And I’m a big supporter of meeting people “where they are”, Bernie. I’m aware that nobody’s perfect; least of all, myself. But based on where people are, I reserve the right not to “meet” them.

Blogging is just like anything else. There’s autobiography, biography, sex, gore and FICTION.

My advice is to take it for what it is.

This isn’t rocket science.

GOOD READ! I definitely agree and I never really thought about it as reality blogging but those are valid and great points

The New York Times recently did an article about how more people with the invention of the internet are able to maintain two or more selves. It showcased a phychologist by day who also was a coke fiend and fighting with pimps over prostitutes…I find that from the many webblogs that I read, this is no different.

Unfotunately Mr. Brotherlove, your comments sound more like if you are webblog police instead of what I beleive that you want to it sound like-someone who has had a lot of experiences with webbloging and who wants to get a message out there that people should “to thine own self be true.”

Like “Bernie” and “Bernard” stated in their posts, people are multifacted. It just depends upon what side that they want for you see that you have to deal with.

I think that if I was Karsh or Wood, I would have been offended that you singled them out-even though you said that it wasn’t about Karsh-You did make it about him when you singled him out just to prove your point.

And lastly-this is just like TV. If you don’t like what you are seeing you can always change the channel!

Peace to all of you in Blog land. I really appreciate the fact that so many people are willing to share with their readers both truth and in some cases the untruth of their lives.

Thank you, Cordell for stopping by and adding your comments.

No police mentality here; I’m all about freedoms. What you couldn’t discern by just passing through is I have personal relationships with both Karsh and Wood that extends beyond our online community. I wouldn’t say anything negative about either of them on my site that I wouldn’t say to their face. I simply gave examples of people who published writing to unexpected ends. In fact, you may note, I also implicated myself as falling into the same trap.

I already addressed the “people are multifaceted” rebuttal however, the fact you were able to my glean from my article my intent of sounding like “someone who has had a lot of experiences with webbloging and who wants to get a message out there that people should ‘to thine own self be true.’” reinforces I was, at the very least, on the right track.

Anyone have a link to that The New York Times article Cordell references?

Well, you sure started a long running debate wiht this topic.

This is a great topic and I love the discussion. I began blogging without thought of an audience. I did it for me. I stil don’t have a defining voice but as it has been stated, we all are multi-faceted. Most days you get the silly and lighter me. The posts are impersonal and removed but fun. Other days I am thoughtful and deliberate. Those posts are personal and longer. Recently I was filled with indignation.

That is what I like about the blogger culture, the diversity. I don’t really care who is behind it. Some people are better than others at revealing themselves. Others are not. If I like the posts, I am going to check it out.

Hmmm, interesting.
But surely blogging is whatever people want it to be?.

We all have our resaons for blogging, some people blog in order to release what ever they feel they need to release a sort of online therapy conduit.
Some people blog in order to play out a hidden personality, some to just put together stories, some to live a life of their dreams, and some do it so they can meet people.

At the end of the day, they get out of blogging what they put in.
It is an extensiopn of their day to day reality as well as their fantasies.

Ahhh…who is that blogger in the window?

When I started my blog, I started it because I was angry and pissed off and needed an outlet for my rage. No one was looking at my site, so what better place to spew? Then all of a sudden people started reading it, started commenting. And you know what happened? I stopped spewing.

I was worried about what people would think about what I wrote, what they woiuld think of me. So I stopped being ME.

Then one day, j. brotherlove stopped in on my spot and left a comment. I came over to see who this guy was and after many hours of reading left knowing that I had to go back to being ME in my writing. Without fear of what others thought, but understanding that my words did have an effect on others.

Most of the bloggers I have met in person are pretty much they same as they are on their blogs…a few exceptions, but not too many.

Now I am about to embark on an extremely public blog for my job, we get over 2 million hits a month, and have been struggling with what my voice will be, what it should be. I keep thinking back and know that I have to be MEe, but I guess I get to be the professional ME for a little while.