Over on my friend Keith's blog, he talks about a discussion we had on New Years Eve about blogging. I told him that I had just started doing this, and the question about what to or what not to blog about came up. I feel strongly that, in this day and age of technological sophistication, when these blog posts are available to anyone with an Internet connection, one has to be extremely careful and thoughtful in what one posts, especially when one is in the position, as Keith and I both are, of looking for a job. What we write, once posted, becomes public content, not easily eradicated, for which the consequences can be potentially severe.
For that reason, I'm likely to shy away from talking about issues and disagreements I've had with past employers. First of all, that's really nobody's business, and secondly, that would probably be looked on with disfavor by a future potential employer. Certainly, I've had my share of disagreements and resentments with people I've worked for in the past - everyone has - but I don't really see a value in flaunting those here in a public forum. Yes, there is value in "getting it off my chest," but that's what friends and family are for. I can, and sometimes do, spend whole evenings bitching about this and that to Judy or Keith or any number of people, but that's private and not a subject of public discussion.
So far, after reading his post, I think Keith would agree with most of what I've said. But then he goes on the say,
"So I have a quandary… since my blog is part of my personal site that includes my resume and my portfolio, do I start censoring what I do and do not comment on? Do I maintain the level of transparency I’ve grown accustomed to in the name of intellectual honesty and risk losing future jobs? Do I keep up the honesty, but move the blog to a different, more anonymous outlet, impugning the intellectual honesty but lessening the degree I cut off my own nose to spite my face ’cause I can’t keep my damn mouth shut? For anyone else, these would probably be easy questions, but for a guy who refused a needed Christmas bonus and declined a wanted job interview to avoid compromising his admittedly too-frigging-rigid ethics, not so much (look up the definition of “Pyrrhic” in the dictionary sometime, you’ll see my picture).
This is the part that I really disagree with. Let's start with the line, "...do I start censoring what I do and do not comment on?" Maybe Keith just chose the wrong word, but censorship isn't the issue here. The Oxford English Dictionary - the best language resource on the planet, bar none - offers the first definition of the word "censor" as:
"An official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security."
The first two words there are key. "An official" refers to an outside agency that reviews a work and decides whether or not it can be presented to the public. It's done without the original author's participation or consent. It's typically a bad thing, flying in the face of one of our most basic human rights, the right to the free expression of ideas.
However, the word has no application here, as there is no outside agency trying to "censor" Keith's blog. What he's talking about is part and parcel of the process of creation: deciding what goes into the finished work and what doesn't. Artists and writers do this all the time, with varying degrees of success. Every book ever written has gone through an editing process, for example, in which parts of it are trimmed, either to improve the pace of the story, to make the book more marketable, to increase comprehension, or whatever. This isn't censorship, even if it's done by an editor that is not the author. That is the editor's job. It's also not censorship when a publishing house declines to publish the novel that you've worked so hard on. That's a business making a business decision that they have every right to make.
Frankly, the word censorship - an incredibly loaded and potentially divisive word - is thrown around far too freely in this age of "inalienable rights." No rights are absolute, and that includes the freedom of speech. Yes, you can express yourself, but then you have to deal with the consequences of that expression. Libel and slander laws are just two ways in which we limit the scope of free speech. That, too, is not censorship, it's responsibility.
So what is censorship? Suppose the New York Times was about to break a story on the political abuses of an extremely unpopular and corrupt vice-president, a story that could very well lead to criminal charges against said public figure. If the White House were to put pressure on the NYT to prevent them from running the story, that would be censorship. It was precisely to avoid this kind of thing that the venerable Founding Fathers included "Freedom of the Press" in the Bill of Rights, as this kind of behavior was far too common under the monarchical system they were trying to get away from. It's a right that has served us well, no doubt, but it has to be used responsibly.
Perhaps Keith would prefer the word "filtering," as in "... do I start filtering what I do and do not comment on?" Actually, he already does, as he decides what to write about and what to leave out. I have yet to see a description of his daily breakfast on his blog, or a moment-by-moment account of his drive from Mesquite to Lewisville. Forget the fact that these are mundane activities, he's already deciding what to and what not to write about, therefore he is already self-filtering. He's not censoring himself by deciding not to write about these things, he's engaging in a constructive process of creative filtration.
He then says:
"...Do I maintain the level of transparency I’ve grown accustomed to in the name of intellectual honesty and risk losing future jobs?"
"Transparency?" "Intellectual honesty?" These are both fine qualities that we expect in our public officials, but what do they have to do with blogging? There's no real requirement for either in a blog, as the only person you're responsible to is yourself. As much as bloggers don't want to hear this, the vast majority - and I mean 99.999% of people writing blogs out there - are not journalists in any way, shape, or form. They may be diarists - and there's nothing wrong with that - but they are not journalists. I mention this because journalists - those who research and report on news - are held to a higher level of transparency and intellectual honesty. That's not the case in blogging. Unless you're paid by someone to blog on a particular subject, you are under no obligation to be honest or transparent. I could, if I wanted to, blog all about my recent trip to Antarctica, where I climbed Mount Kilimanjaro and shot an elephant in my pajamas. Not only would it be a lie and intellectually dishonest, but I'm under no obligation to tell you it's a lie, thus eliminating the requirement for transparency. And guess what: nothing would happen. The Blog Police wouldn't knock down my door at 3 a.m., Judy wouldn't leave me, my friends wouldn't shun me... nothing. This blog is exactly what I wnat it to be, nothing more. You, as the reader, have no rights here. I will tell you what I want, when I want, in whatever way I want, and you will either read it or not.
And that's the crux of the matter: a blog is about what the writer wants it to be about. If you want to post the details of every conversation, every real or imagined slight, every disagreement, every argument, go ahead. But then, when you're asked the unanswerable question, such as "Does this make me look fat?," you'd best not filter your thoughts or compromise your intellectual honesty and give a true, honest answer.
And suffer the consequences.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment