If so, you are not alone.
But if such fears have prevented you from writing a blog, your chances of finding gainful employment are much improved — at least according to this post from Daniel Drezner.
Of course, if you’re tenured or have job security for other reasons, you’re lucky. The not so lucky are finding themselves not hired because of a blog, or even being fired.
I’m hoping this will change over time, as the fear of blogs wears off. But for now, bloggers who think they’re safe because their blogs avoid controversial topics (or are limited to specialty interests) should think again. What most fascinated me about the philosophy behind moral disapproval of blogging is that it’s not what you say that matters as much as the fact that you say anything:
The content of the blog may be less worrisome than the fact of the blog itself. Several committee members expressed concern that a blogger who joined our staff might air departmental dirty laundry (real or imagined) on the cyber clothesline for the world to see. Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum.
In other words, there’s no such thing as a “good” blogger? I have a logical problem with this because it’s just as silly to assume that someone without a blog won’t start one (or might not already have a pseudonymous one) as it is to assume that a “good” blogger will continue to be good. Blogging is not an inborn or genetic condition. It takes fifteen minutes — and zero money — to start a blog, anonymous or otherwise.
Daniel Drezner quotes from this anonymous blogger, who explains that “blogging is dangerous because hiring committees are paranoid, conservative, and illogical.” (I’ve touched on the folly of Internet/blogging confidentiality here.)
I think blogging — whether anonymous or otherwise — is good for the soul of the individual blogger and of the country. I think that one of the reasons so many bloggers are drawn to this medium is that in too many ways, America has become a country in which people are afraid to say what they think. Blogging gives a voice (if not a loudspeaker) to those who’d normally be silent, but the downside is that it gives them an opportunity to be heard by the very people who’d normally intimidate them into silence. I think there are people who’ve taken up blogging precisely because thoughts like “I could never say this at work!” or “You just can’t discuss issues like this in public!” ran through their minds. And yet (especially if their blogs stay there long enough and are read by enough people) they can end up finding themselves in a position of being intimidated by the very people (that collective entity known by the euphemism of “society”) who intimidated them into blogging in the first place.
I think that’s a paradox.
And maybe it’s a good paradox.