Blog posts exist in an uneasy position between permanent publications and more informal discussion. How ought they to be viewed when assessing a person’s reputation as a thinker and writer?
[B]loggers are not just diary-keepers in pj’s but contributors to a national dialogue. Of course, journalists seek to be skeptical of this notion, and I think that suspicion is warranted if bloggers live by different rules, including the rule that any post can be deleted if the poster has a change of heart. When a television journalist says something on television, those words are recorded forever. When someone writes an op-ed for the NYT, then once the paper is printed, the op-ed is there forever.
What exactly are blog posts? Publications such as op-eds? Or just talk in an ongoing conversation? Or something of both? This issue is important because it will affect how blog posts come to be used in evaluating the blogger as a thinker and writer. That’s because we have very different standards in evaluating what people say in publications and what people say in conversations.