O argumento de Simon Dumenco tem a sua lógica: porque hei-de ser um 'blogger' por escrever textos numa determinada ferramenta e não ser 'worder' ou 'word-perfecter' por escrever textos numa outra?
Ou seja, na sua opinião, isto de ser um blogger não faz muito sentido:
"There is no such thing as a blogger. Blogging is just writing -- writing using a particularly efficient type of publishing technology".
Mas então:
"So why does the idea of the blogger as The Other continue to persist? Because many bloggers, of course, like the idea of being all alterna; it’s a point of pride, a tenet of the “blog community” (whatever that is), that bloggers are superior to the musty, lumbering, out-of-touch traditional media. And for traditional-media types, blog/blogging/bloggers are variants of a sort of linguistic armor -- labels that allow old-school-ists to convince themselves that they are the true professionals, and they needn’t radically alter the way they work (i.e., work way faster, interact constantly with readers, be vastly more voracious, etc.) to compete with the amateurs, the arrivistes".
A ideia de fundo - a importante, a que devemos reter de todo este processo - é a seguinte:
"Ultimately, it comes down to this: In the very near future, there are only going to be two types of media people: those who can reliably work and publish (or broadcast) incredibly fast, and those ... who can’t".
E não terá sido sempre assim?
Encontrei a indicação para o texto no Cyberjournalist.net.