Blogging always seems like a risk, no matter what you write or what you don’t write. If you write something, it goes on record and the whole world can see it–which is unfortunate if the information is inaccurate, your opinions change, or you decide later that you would rather not have shared. If you don’t write something, people are free to assume whatever they’d like. On the other hand, it’s not on the record, and there’s no real proof. Re: the Fidel blog, hindsight is 20/20. If Fidel hadn’t resigned, would people have read this deep into the omission of Raul from his blog? Probably not, and even if they did, there would have been no information to back it up.

My attitude toward blogging was fairly cavalier when I started my own blog, and it largely continues to be so, though I am really quite careful about anything I post related to contacts or my own research. I think I can afford to be cavalier because I don’t have much at stake– no personal or professional secrets or machinations. When I get a real job, the nature of my blog will probably have to change. And if I were a world leader I surely wouldn’t keep one!

I think something that is more revealing with regards to bloggers is frequency of posting. A couple of my favorites have puttered out recently for personal or professional reasons, and I often do it myself.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=2017