Writing for the Web Isn't So Much Different After All

"Anything makes a good subject, as long as you take your time and crystallize the details, tying them together and actually telling a story, rather than offering a simple list of facts."

That is just a bit from one of Dennis A. Mahoney's many tips on "How to Write a Better Weblog." As someone who has experience writing in a variety of media, I will have to admit that there does not seem to be as much of a difference as I had once thought.

Let me preface by saying that it is ironic I am writing this entry from the first-person perspective (hence the use of "I"), whereas the connoisseur of blogs, Mr. Mahoney, recommends against using it unless absolutely necessary. I have maintained my own blog for almost half a decade and also read other authors' blogs for a longer period of time. And although I agree with restricting the use of self-perspective, I deem it is necessary to do so in order to hone and critique Mr. Mahoney's tips.

His tip in regards to the inclusion of detail in web writing (as listed above) proves to be quite accurate and usable in other media as well. Take for example, I am a newspaper reporter who has just been assigned to cover the fire on Main Street.

If I am not to include specific details such as the number of casualties, how devastating the fire is, etc., then I shouldn't be surprised to find a pink slip on my desk. In any reading, it is the effort placed into the details which keeps the readers enticed by the captivating literature.

I wholeheartedly disagree with his tip of amusing the readers. I respect his opinion as a fellow writer and as a human being, but it is illogical to believe that "everything is funny." Mahoney cites one's race and sexual orientation as being humorous, and that making light of a serious situation does not have to be disrespectful.

I rebut with this question: what if you are maintaining a blog for MSNBC, a well-respected news site, and you make light about the eternal debate over abortion. Granted, Mahoney says that blog authors should be able to "expect both rational and irrational criticism" but I personally do not believe the employer nor a good amount of readers will be too pleased with tasteless humor.

To claim that the blog is only for the author's own use is an illogical statement in itself. In my opinion, the blog is a *public* soapbox which allows the author an opportunity to share his/her thoughts with people worldwide. If the author truly wanted to generate content only for their own use, he/she would not post it on cyberspace, but rather on a saved Microsoft Word document or a traditional pen and paper.

And to say that blogs lack style or approach is also another illogical statement, as I believe every literate being possesses his/her own approach to writing; whether it's through the computer or with a pen in hand.

I feel that Bernstein would agree with my point of view since he backs up the common writing style of an amateur claiming that the unnecessary amount of "un-profound" content is due to the overexposure of our society's many sources of information. With the large amount of information available at a click of a button, it comes as no surprise that the average reader would want their voice heard too. After all, Bernstein says that "you've got this absolutely batty opportunity of instant global publishing. Publish!"