I'm stung by the sheer timing of finding this, as I read uh, well, the first diary I've read in years.
From corante.com (via boingboing.net) I got:
As i’ve written before, blogging is rhetorically situated between journalism and diarying. Most often, people label blogging as one or the other in order to degrade it. The NYTimes pulled this act today because they have a professional interest in portraying convention bloggers as “low-brow” and unworthy of reading, while the NYTimes will present the real “high-brow” convention story. By framing bloggers as diarists, the NYTimes is demanding that the reader see blogs as petty, childish and self-absorbed.
Apparently, comparing blogging to one of the older forms of literature (the diary dates back the better part of a millennia, if we go from the example of The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon, a core piece of classical Japanese literature) is demeaning blogging as immature. I did not realize that modern journalism was older than the printed word, and feel I must thank the author for her brilliant insight.
I also would thank the author for shedding light on the fact that 'diarying' is an appropriate declension of any verb in the English language.
Somewhere, an entire nation of literature professors are lining up to weep at the grave of H. L. Mencken.