Behind Enemy Lines

I never would have anticipated the dangers of posting a simple link to my blog, but I would have been wrong.

After doing my post on why Quebec City would be a better choice for the NHL than Hamilton I decided to try to spread the word, posting the link on a Facebook group promoting the idea of bringing the NHL to Hamilton.

Unfortunately, the feedback didn't so much start a discussion, as I had expected, but questioned my reasons for posting on the group, and basically just bashing me. I doubt that many of them even read the story, but  a few of them did and gave actual responses on the post. The rest of them, however, just bashed myself, my intelligence and my morals.

While I'm sure you'd rather read some of the creative insults that people came up with, this actually raises a serious question. When does hyperlinking and self-promotion become immoral? Does it ever?

Clearly, I felt I was in the right for posting on this group. My post was largely on the subject of an NHL team in Hamilton, and I used (or tried to with the best of my abilities) facts and logical reason as to why Quebec is a better city. At the same time, however, I now realize why people might be a little pissed off. While it's not necessarily spamming (one of the most annoying and arguably least moral things to do according to general netiquette), it could be seen as spreading hockey blasphemy. I was going against everything that everyone in the group was promoting. It would be like going to a Conservative rally wearing red and shouting pro-Liberal comments (well, with Kansas City as the front-runner now it may be more like showing NDP support).

So, in my opinion, I say that what I did is completely justifiable. I was trying to relate a story that affected them, and that, while drawing some negative criticism, would offer a realist and different perspective than the simple cheering of the idea. I wasn't spreading spam, nor was I just trying to be an asshole by disagreeing with their ideas. I was using my sports knowledge and expertise to write a legitimate story on an issue that was in the news.

That is, or should be, completely fair and acceptable. And if it's not, I guess I'm going to being breaking a lot of rules of netiquette.

Gonzo VS Blogging

This weekend I had the pleasure of seeing Jonathan Goldstein speak. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with him (I know I was until this week), he is the host of CBC Radio’s Wiretap. Basically, he hosts a half-hour show where he discusses life stories with his friends, who act as characters. While the information the show is based on is true, the interactions and much of what is said is fictional.

  

The entire time I listened to him speak and listened to clips from his show, the way he told stories reminded me a lot of the writing of Hunter S. Thompson, the infamous Gonzo journalist. And as the classroom discussion of whether blogging counts as journalism, I wondered more and more about Thompson and how he managed to get the “journalist” title.

            

Thompson became famous for his hilarious adventures, which mixed real-life tales with his added personal thoughts and some (it had to be) fictional tales, yet defined what is known as “Gonzo journalism.” Key word there: journalism. Thompson was continually hired by newspapers and magazines, and had all the responsibilities and privileges of a professional journalist.

            

What he did was everything but traditional journalism: mixing his “coverage” with the feelings he had while hopped up on every type of drug imaginable. This goes back to the debate of who deserves to be called a journalist, and receive journalistic privilege. He seems, just as much of a blogger, to be opinionated and again to be more editorial than anything.

            

Is this what blogging is then? Gonzo journalism? In some cases, I would definitely agree. Overwhelmingly though, Hunter S. Thompson’s role in the newspaper, while unorthodox, gives him the privilege that bloggers cannot try to claim. My opinion remains, blogging is not journalism. With all of the commentary, and the lack of training to be a journalist, it is just way too dangerous to give Everyday Joe who happens to have a blog, that type of power and respect.

Am I A Journalist

As I continue blogging, I continually ask myself if what I’m doing is journalism. While I do write for a newspaper, and I consider that aspect journalism, the simple commentary that I add on this blog is different. What is it exactly that I am doing?

What I like to classify it as is acting as a columnist or an opinion writer. While I am writing original material, I am more critiquing what is going on in the world as opposed to actually reporting it. I am clearly laying out my opinion on the topics, and am not necessarily giving both sides of the story; therefore I am not really acting as a journalist.

Journalists are given special privileges, they act as the fourth estate, and they have certain responsibilities because of this. Journalism gives off the impression that you are delivering facts, that you have many sources, and that you are to a certain degree an expert on the topic. While I like to think I have the “expert” title, I am certainly not delivering facts and I definitely don’t have any key sources in the NHL. The stories that I’m commenting on, those were written by journalists, my writing however is not. What I write should be taken with the notion that I am spinning my words to try to attempt you to agree with me.

One professor once said that, “Journalists don’t tell you what to think. Journalists tell you what to think about.” There are few journalistic statements I agree with more, and blogs are for the majority, about telling you what to think.

This is why I am not a journalist.