• Mon, 1 Jun 1998

From: ginkgo@mail.jade-leaves.com
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:00:47 -1000

No, I insist on it, too. A journalist, to me, is someone involved in the news media. Sure, I'm probably ignoring other definitions and being all ignorant there, but that's just how I feel. I'm a "journaler". What struck me is that I've never heard (I could have missed it) any of the journalers calling themselves journalists. Maybe this NYT journalist simply wanted to show that they are a *real* journalist by misquoting the journal community--misquoting is the mark of a journalist of the news media, is it not? (Just a joke, don't anyone freak out on me or anything.)

From: Al Schroeder <al.schroeder@nashville.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 01:21:25 -1000

Yes, I KNOW some journalists. Whatever I'm doing, it's not journalism. I use "journaller" or "on-line diarist" or something. I think I've seen a few on-line diarists call themselves "journalists" but not consistently...I might have slipped up and done it myself, but not when I think about it.--Al.

From: "scott liles" <scott_to_trot@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:44:44 -1000

I think of a journal as an account of a man's or woman' experiences. A diary is probably the same to me at least, but it doesn't sound as cool for a guy to say "I have a diary." Hope I don't get flamed for this bit of sexism. :-)

the only words I've heard are journaller or diarist. We know enough about what we do to know we're not journalists. That doesn't make what we do less, it's like we're not journalists in the way we're not dentists, it's the wrong word.

and so far misquoting and misinterpreting tends to be the rule, with a few exceptions, of journalist articles on online journalling.

From: Kymm Zuckert <hedgehog@hedgehog.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:07:05 -1000

Nope, I use journalist all the time, and I probably did when she interviewed me so you can lay that one squarely at my door. And here is the dictionary definition:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

journalist \Jour"nal*ist\, n. [Cf. F. journaliste.] 1. One who keeps a journal or diary. [Obs.] --Mickle. 2. The conductor of a public journal, or one whose business it to write for a public journal; an editorial or other professional writer for a periodical. --Addison.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]

journalist n 1: a writer for newspapers and magazines 2: someone who keeps a diary or journal [syn: {diarist}, {diary keeper}]

From: gus mueller <gus@spies.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:23:18 -1000

indeed, the word "journaler" (a term that makes my skin crawl) thankfully cannot be found in any dictionary; it was invented apparently to describe what we do.

and there's no firm distinction anyway. i cover a beat, i have more readers than some real journalists, and i have even received income from it. the fact that i wasn't trained as a journalist, that i focus on myself or that i don't write on paper are all aspects that can be found in the careers of "real" journalists.

From: "scott liles" <scott_to_trot@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:49:21 -1000

I prefer to think of myself as a "monkey banging away at a keyboard," but I'd take journaller anyday. But that's just me.

From: "Doug Franklin" <nilknarf@networksplus.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:56:44 -1000

I started using the word "journaller" shortly after I started doing this, mostly because I didn't like "diarist" and "journalist" is already taken... by people who do journalism. I have a brother who's a journalist, and I don't want to get in his territory... And besides that... I don't really *want* to be associated with "journalists"... they are just barely above used car dealers and politicians in most public confidence surveys...

From: <Toritoo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:26:26 -1000

My problem has always been with the spelling of "journaller". I much prefer "journaler" or "journaling" as opposed to "journalling". As does my spell checker.

As for the issue of assigning " journalist" to describe someone who writes an online journal...I tend to side with those who have chosen to eschew the term. Simply for the reasoning that online journaling is a new advent...much different (IMHO) then the process and reasoning for a private diary which the term "journalist" is associated. As well as one, which modern English dictionaries, simply have not created a definition as of yet.

Selfish and vain reasoning aside (creating dubious new definitions or assigning impressive ones such as "journalist" )... the correct term would be "online diarist" or "public diarist" to define what we do.

But that just sounds a bit corny, doesn't it?

From: "sarah" <word@western.wave.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:38:25 -1000

is it me or is this whole thing just a huge semantics dialogue??...who cares what we call what we do....we write about ourselves in a form that is online ...if you want to call yourself journaller, diarist, or president does it matter?? ....i thought what was important was the way in which we write, how we allow people into our lives, our perceptions of the world around us....i don't really call me anything in regards to what i do with my online journal, doesn't seem to figure into my way of being to inanely label what is unimportant...i write in a notepad type editor so does that mean i'm a notepader instead of a journaller?? .... i'm busy studying for my certification exams so maybe it's just the high volume of water and pretzels going to my head this sunny afternoon....go figure

From: A <andrew@video2.ibroadcast.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:28:32 -1000

Ah, people just get proud of their job titles. The ability to be a "journalist" in ones spare time would tend to reduce the amount of respect the "professionals" could elicit from the commons.

(I'm looking for a way to mention that my job title is "software engineer" and that is indeed what I do[1], despite never finishing college.) (making the other engineers snippy.)

After a year of reading wildly inaccurate articles in the Seattle Times, I haven't got a whole lot of respect for journalists left.

[1] When I'm not wasting time in email.

From: "Cory Glen" <coryglen@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:46:54 -1000

I have a feeling whatever word is used the most will be the one that sticks in the long run. I've called myself a cyberdiarist living in the land of Journaldom. Don't think those are going to stick though.

From: <Toritoo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:01:51 -1000

I think it does matter a bit. Not so much for ourselves, but for those who may not be familar with online journaling. And is exactly why I think the term "journalist" may be a bit misleading.

From: gus mueller <gus@spies.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:53:51 -1000

the thing is that online journals are a modern-technology-enabled hybrid of several different things from the past. publication is now so effortless that we can do it with our personal journals, immediately making them less personal, more like publications. especially as we become aware of our audience, pander to that audience, and overall try to stay out of trouble. all personal sites (that is person-centered sites) are really just published journals anyway.

From: eileen <thehermit@geocities.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:13:00 -1000

I think a bit of it is from public perception of what a word means. Even if you go ahead and call youself a journalist, most people are going to think you are the other meaning. I mean you can't arbitrarily change meanings because language including titles such as these evolves from the common usage of words, not declarations of meaning. excuse me if this makes no sense, im sick right now.