In the past week, lots of people (including myself) have weighed in on the blogosphere brouhaha about whether Elizabeth Edwards is a good mother by being on the Presidential campaign trail with her children or whether, in light of her current cancer diagnosis, she should be home spending time with her kids. It was more of a Mommy Wars thing than a political one, but it’s been getting a lot of play.
I’m not going to get further into the substance of the post that started it all. There’s plenty to read about it here or here, or the other links above, including the original (but slightly edited) post.
As I’ve said before, I will defend the author’s right to say whatever she wants on her own posts — we all want to be able to do that, right?
However, I’m still wondering why the author, Rebecca at Silicon Valley Moms Blog, decided to edit her original words to tone down her opinion a bit in the post that’s currently up? (For full disclosure, I also blog at DC Metro Moms Blog, the sister site to SVMoms). Rebecca says that after further reflection, she changed her mind and decided that Elizabeth Edwards wasn’t a bad mother after all.
Is that fair? If the post had been written as a newspaper or magazine article, the original words would still exist, even if the author decided it was prudent to backtrack a bit. But here in the blogosphere, with the click of a mouse, we can, if we want, reshape and rewrite. It’s easy to erase the evidence of our first pass on a topic. It’s a great thing if we make a factual mistake or a typo or even if we decide we’ve shared something a little too personal from our own lives — no need to issue a “correction,” you can just fix it or take it down and go on.
But if you throw an incendiary device into the blogosphere, should you be prepared to stand by your words, even if that means you start taking fire yourself? Or is it OK to alter the original text if, as an author, you’ve had a genuine change of heart?
It’s not a pleasant thing to voice an unpopular opinion and have criticism and unwanted publicity rain down on you. It takes a certain amount of bravery and confidence in one’s own views to put them out there for all to see and comment on. But for me, I think once you’ve walked out on that ledge, you’ve got to find the inner strength to stay there.
What say you?
I agree with most of what you say. The beautiful thing about the blogosphere is that you can share what you’re feeling when you’re feeling it. So, if Rebecca truly had a change of heart, it would have been better (more real) for her to have written another heart felt post that revealed her inner thoughts and turmoil rather than desperately trying to argue with the comments and revising her original post.
In Rebecca’s defense, though, we’re all still trying to figure out this blogging thing and she was clearly caught off guard by the press attention and the direct response from Mrs. Edwards. There really are no “rules” for blogging and that’s also a beautiful thing.
Amy S. | September 4th, 2007 at 1:09 am
I dunno. I’m all for having an open mind. Watching an idea evolve, e.g. on a blog via discussion, is a beautiful thing. Taking it one step further, I’m suspicious of people whose beliefs are entirely static, a sign of having a closed mind.
The problem with what Rebecca did was that she didn’t characterize her evolution as just that - an evolution. As PM describes it, the post was revised, not expanded upon or appended with an “update.” In so doing she compromised her authenticity and credibility, I think.
Jane | September 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I think she should have left the original post, but I’m not sure I would have had the cojones to do that if I were in her shoes. Getting a response directly from EE was pretty amazing. She obviously didn’t think through how hurtful, public and judgmental her comments were.
PT-LawMom | September 7th, 2007 at 9:16 pm