Misunderstanding: There is no Such Thing As a “Print” Writer in the Wine Media
Media reports out of and about the recent Wine Bloggers Conference as well as certain panels at the conference (I could not be there due to baby), have in some measure drawn attention to a severe misunderstanding among some about the nature of writing, blogging and media in general. The theme I’m referring to is the idea that there is “print media” on the one hand and something else (digital?) on the other. The sister theme to this is that “print writers” don’t have much to offer “bloggers” or non-print writers.
Let me clear up this misunderstanding: There is no such thing as a “print writer”.
The misunderstanding seems to have emerged from a seminar at the Wine Bloggers Conference unfortunately named “A Panel of Professional Print Writers” in which writers James Conaway, Mike Dunne and Steve Heimoff offered observations. I continue to be shocked that some folks today distinguish between “print writers” and others as though their output is different in a fundamental way because their work might also be published in print, as well as digitally.
How much writing today is not published digitally? There may be a poetry journal somewhere that insists its content can only be appreciated on a pulp based medium.
There are numerous styles of writing and reporting that show up on wine blogs and other digital media: Traditional reporting, ranting, straight wine reviews, commentary, opinion, how-to. The fact of the matter is that it waste of time to assume there is some difference between the substance of writing that appears in print as well as a digital format and writing that appears only on blogs. It’s a misunderstanding.