"So a lot of times, like I'll write a blog post because something in the media is wrong. Right, like they misrepresented the science, or, they're talking about __ in an incorrect way, or, basically, something has engaged mass public appeal, and the record needs to be corrected, and obviously, everybody's going to be coming running to [my blog], to find out the true answer [sarcastic]. And so, it's really just more of a compulsion, where I'm like, I want to have a voice in this discussion.
[But] earlier in my blogging I would be motivated by things in the media more than I am now. And part of that is because I think that now that I spend more time as a scientist online, I'm seeing stuff covered in lots of different venues? And so I feel a pretty good, that there's a good record out there on stuff. And so me being there quite quickly to address stuff is not as imperative, as I once perceived it to be? And now I can take the time and do these more integrative [posts]... I mean sometimes I have posts that have like 20 citations. And, you know, are quite nuanced and detailed, and, and um, and so..."
The science blogger's approach to what is worth blogging about often changes over time. The blogger quoted above, whom I've interviewed for my research, started out with a compulsion to write about anything 'wrong' she saw online or in the news media that pertained to her field of science.
But once engaged in the larger science blogging and science journalism community, primarily via Twitter, this blogger became aware that she wasn't the only one 'setting the record straight.' This realization seemed to 'free' the blogger. It allowed her to branch out into other blogging approaches - such as in-depth reviews of scientific literature - that she didn't have as much time for when 'media correction' was her primary focus and concern.
Has engaging with the wider science blogging community changed anything about YOUR approach to blogging about science?