It’s definitely documentary, but I’ve been thinking and talking about it more and [documentary] doesn’t mean much anymore. Now creation is made in a way that putting names on such creation doesn’t really mean anything. Lots of people from our generation, we are inspired and influenced by so many different fields because we have access to so [much] more than before. It’s impossible to just be inspired by cinema – you listen to music all the time and you read stuff and you have access to all those amazing things and so I guess now we are seeing more hybrid creations and they don’t belong to any genre. So I don’t see myself as owed to cinematography – I don’t even call myself a director or anything. I call myself a “filmer” – I don’t know if that would be a word in English – but in a way I’m not really a filmmaker I’m just a “filmer.” I’m just a guy using a tool and that tool is a camera but it could be something else.
Similarly, I’ve chosen to call myself a “writer” or “author”, not a journalist. While I phrase my motivation differently, it is based on the same observations as Moon’s: A blurring of lines between different media and genres.
Being a journalist, as I understand it, does not mean being employed by a newspaper or writing reportages. It means having been socialized with what I call the “narrative of journalism”. To know its history, its heroes, its principles.
In that sense, I am a blogger. Not only do I write mainly for blogs, the blogosphere is also where I started writing and where today I get most of my news from.
But being a blogger and being a journalist cannot be compared. Journalism is a profession. Blogging is use of a medium, like “writing for a newspaper”. I write for blogs. I write for other media, too.
The only consistency is text. That’s why I’m a writer.