Forum Moderators: not2easy
Zine - Online magazine. Popular word before 'blog'.
EZine - Email 'magazine' or variant of Zine.
Blog - One man/woman publication with comments, mostly, but can allow for multiple contributors (to my understanding), so is it a one woman magazine?
CMS System - Allows for 'sort of' magazine with extras: forum versus comment system.
Couldn't a forum behave just like a blog? A forum moderator or 'leader' posts a 'thought of the day' thread and then people comment?
Online publishing is either static or interactive content. If it's about interactive content then it's about granularity of control over participation and therefore content creation. Who cares what it's called?
Do we think differently in a blogosphere versus a forumosphere?
Are all the distinctions irrelevant and all that matters is the quality of the content, its presentation and granularity of control?
What next after zine, ezine, forum, blog?
Food for thought. Design accordingly. Comment if you wish.
Next, the news media takes upon itself the task of exposing how bloggers are misleading the public, how bloggers are not subject to any code of conduct, how bloggers are unregulated/uncensored/etc.
"Trust us. We're professional journalists and newscasters."
A CMS is just an easy way for non tech savvie people to update their website. So while a blog is a kind of CMS, not all CMS are Blogs.
As to whether or not the content within is valid, and whether or not it should be subject to the same kind of editorial control newspapers are, I leave that up to you.
(Although I don't think they should be. A Blog, by it's very definition, is a personal log. Liable to slander and liable laws, yes, but editorial reviews? Nope!)
Blogs are definitely a middle ground, where the primary author(s) have the loudest voice, but others can interact by posting comments.
One doesn't hear much about Ezines any more, but I'd guess that some sites continue to fit that definition. Perhaps zine characteristics (vs. blogs) might include content addition on a fixed schedule in the form of "issues" vs. the semi-random approach of most blogs.
Clearly, all these overlap - CMS software often has built in comment functionality and even forum integration. A forum could be set up to allow only the owner or specified member levels to start new threads, making it more blog-like. And blog software can make a dandy CMS by dumping the comment and calendar stuff.
I think the distinctions are more in the mind of the site owner and the desired degree of interactivity - specific software packages are geared toward different uses. While it might be possible to turn forum software into a CMS, that would be more difficult and less effective than starting with CMS software (if no interaction was desired).
I think the "zine" concept is mostly in the mind of the creator, too - if you think like a magazine editor, and act like a magazine editor... you are publishing a 'zine. :)
I guess, unlike forums, there's no one discussion starter - like with a blog. On the other hand, with most forrms, there is a de facto "conversation starter": The title and charter of each forum thread area. For example: Content Writing and Copyright.
Interesting: Blog - interact with one person? Well, not quite, since comments can comment about other comments?
Perhaps a blog is more about 'holding forth' (I know this! I opine thusly!) and forums are more often about solicitiing? "Help, I have a problem . . ."
Zine? Fixed? Article driven? Yet, I recall - about a year or so ago - a significant news article about a Korean (?) online "news site" (or something close to that) where "the news" was generated by members posting what they observed, heard, etc.
Maybe all formats - in the interest of stickiness - news, online magazines, zines, ezines, blogs, etc. - maybe they're all moving towards "interactive media"?
So, when more and more versions of online media moves towards interactive media what will be the distinction?
Blog: One person is the initiater. (Question: Will blog software move towards allowing 'trusted memebers' to post in order to provoke the principal blogger to comment?)
Forum: Multiple initiators, constrained by predetermined themes (mostly).
Zine: Traditional 'article'. Is this model on the wane? Is 'static' moving towards extinction?
Do you want to hold forth to the world, and (maybe) let them talk back to you? Setup a blog, with or without comments enabled.
Do you want to create a place where people can discuss and talk about subjects? Setup a forum.
EZines, as far as I'm concerned, are simply a way to passivly inform people of updates to a website. And a CMS is just a way to let people update a website. (I would define a CMS as being a technological solution to a problem, namely how to let people update content to a website.)
Are traditional news sites moving towards interactivity? No, I don't think so. Sites such as CNet or the BBC allow premoderated user comments on selected stories, but these are usually more either personal viewpoints (I was there when the bank was robbed! I told the manager he would be robbed if he kept leaving the safe open! type comments) rather than a full discussion of the story. When I visit CNN or the BBC, I want to read about the bank robbery, not why some person calling themself X_wonderboy_3332 thinks that bank robbers are cool and that when his #*$!les clear up he wants to be one.
That's not to say that some news sites can't combine news with forums, or articles with comments. Depending upon the subject matter, letting people post feedback is a great way to expand upon the original content.
For example, Amazons "review this book" feature is a great way for me to know more about a book before committing. Often I've been browsing, and haven't been convinced by the resume, but the reviews has convinced me to purchase. (Also vice versa, but hey!).
Does that mean that Amazon should move away from it's moderated review system to a free for all commenting system? Heck no.
Next, the news media takes upon itself the task of exposing how bloggers are misleading the public, how bloggers are not subject to any code of conduct, how bloggers are unregulated/uncensored/etc."Trust us. We're professional journalists and newscasters."
Part of their attack on bloggers is jealousy and part is right on. The fallacy is their grouping all bloggers into one package.
Most bloggers do not hold degrees in journalism and/or do not have solid media experience and/or don't have their name/livelihood at stake with every word.
However, just because a blogger is not a "professional" does not mean they lack worth. Anyone who can solidify what they say/claim with solid references is worth listening to or at the very least, acknowledging.
In the traditional media outlets, stories are made up too. One can look to the NY Times or recent CNN debacle to see that.
While many bloggers just spout mindless chatter on issues with no solid references, not all of them do. Grouping them all as bad would be like saying all muslims are terrorists because some muslims committed terrorists acts.
Are all the distinctions irrelevant
Yep. It's like trying to define what "life" is. It's (currently) impossible. If you say, "A blog is this" I can think of exceptions. If you say "a website is this," I can think of exceptions.
