Joe Posnanski

Numerous people have written in over the last few months to ask me what I, as a “mainstream columnist” think about bloggers. I think, at this point, this is a silly question, sort of like asking someone, “What do you think about this cable television thing?” I mean, there are like 700 billion blogs on the Internet today. It’s sort of a fact of life.

But I think I know what they mean: People in the mainstream media are, I’m told, supposed to hate the whole concept of blogging (just as bloggers are supposed to, I’m told, hate the mainstream media), Or, if not hate, at least look down.

Bloggers are, after all, not journalists, at least not most of the time, at least not technically. In the political realm, they don’t (supposedly) have the same access to politicians and policy wonks and (especially) political aids that we journalists have. In the news-gathering realm bloggers don’t necessarily follow the ethical codes of sourcing and fair play that newspapers are supposed to embrace. And in the sports realm, bloggers can write more or less what they want without editing and without fear of facing an angry offside-jumping 310-pound defensive lineman who wonders why you called him a “brainless ogre.” Also I hear a lot of bloggers live in their parents basement and write in their pajamas. Hey, it’s just what I read.

And mainstream media are, after all, not bloggers, at least not most of the time, at least not technically. In the political realm, they don’t (supposedly) have the same passion and sense of right and wrong that we bloggers have. In the news gathering realm, journalists too often seek both sides even when one side is clearly less credible and on shakier moral ground. And in the sports realm, journalists sometimes write about games like they are school board meetings, that is to say without much sense that they like sports or care enough to call an angry offside-jumping 310-pound defensive lineman a “brainless ogre.” Also I hear a lot of mainstream journalists are pompous asses who haven’t considered a new idea since the Reformation.

Anyway, that’s what I’ve been told.

Here’s what I think: Some of the best writing in America is on blogs. Some of the funniest, most inspired, bravest and smartest writing.

Here’s also what I think: Some of the worst writing in America is on blogs. Some of the stupidest, angriest, most cowardly and dumbest writing.

And, yes, you guessed it, the same thing can more or less be said about newspapers. And radio. And television. And movies. And music. And every other medium. Maybe the good-bad range is wider on the Internet because people are, generally, doing it for free and for their own reasons. But this is part of the reason I love this big, blogging nation. For every awful, hateful, mean-spirited blog out there, there’s another hilarious, thoughtful, uplifting one. For every stupid, pointless, near-libelous blog there’s another intelligent, beneficial, insightful blog. That’s just how the game works.

I have to say some of my favorite daily reading the last three or four years has been on blogs. There are so many talented and passionate people out there working in fields outside of journalism. And I mean there are lots of blogs, hey, Malcolm Gladwell has a great blog, and my hero Scott Raab wrote a scathing and profane and hilarious baseball blog, and Curt Schilling writes one of the more interesting athlete blogs and there are countless great sports blogs (some even written by talented readers; some are not even about sports) and countless great political blogs (that I will not link for fear of giving away too much of my own political mind — I’m not going through that Wahoo thing again) and Mom blogs, and all sorts of other blogs, way, way, way too many to list here.

And there are some seriously deranged and awful blogs too that lower the conversation and insult good people and make you want to get a second lock for your front doors. Hey, I’m not saying that the criticisms of blogs are not valid. I’m saying that they are mostly beside the point. No, most political bloggers don’t have great inside sources. But they are writing because something deep and important compels them to write and so they have an authority and sense of justice. No, most sports blogs do not have access to the players, nor do the bloggers have to face the music. But most of them are writing for LOVE of sports. So they have a depth of emotion involved. Yes, some blogs are poorly written and poorly informed and spew hate. But that’s the price of a free Internet.

Bloggers are not getting paid to do it (or not getting paid a lot to do it). They are writing from the heart, from the gut, from the research they have finished, from a hard point of view, and it’s often the most entertaining and heartfelt work around. It’s often the most slanderous and bitchy work too. All in all, it’s a fun time to be a reader.

Hey, I want to stand up for newspaper writing too — I think there is a lot of excellent newspaper writing and work (and I’m including mainstream Internet writing here too), and much of it is done under extreme conditions, terrible deadlines and with rapidly shrinking access. It’s a different kind of writing from blogs with different expectations. There are extreme penalties for being wrong — from loss of face to demotions to firings to the wrath of a thousand of angry emails. There are high standards, not just the fairness standards that are both trumpeted and mocked, but popularity standards too. If people don’t read you, look out.

There’s another thing. When I write this blog, I’m writing for free and for people who, I suspect, have some sort of interest level (or else why would they click on this blog in the first place — and believe me, with some of the comments I get, I do wonder about that). When I write for the newspaper, I’m writing for a living and for people who:

1. Are huge, enormous, psychotic sports fans.
2. Are reasonably big sports fans.
3. Have a passing interest in sports.
4. Do not care about sports.
5. Hate sports.

There are constant tensions between those five groups, and it’s difficult/impossible to make them all reasonably content with one column. The vast majority of complaints I get are from one of those groups who have determined that the column I wrote did not suit their particular needs, i.e. a rabid sports fan who thinks the column was too basic or not negative enough (or too much about “people”) or a sports-hater who wants to know why anyone should care about a baseball or football game when there are people dying in Iraq or a middle of the road fan who wonders what the hell I’m doing in Japan anyway.

This is true throughout the newspaper — when you are writing for a wide audience, you are necessarily spending a whole lot of time explaining, offering background, trying to assure people that you are giving them a complete picture and an authoritative perspective. That doesn’t always make for great writing.

But that’s just the deal. Like I say, under the circumstances I still think there is a whole lot of good newspaper (and Internet) work being done out there. I still think that newspapers often drive the conversation, which is good because — though there are always issues and concerns and slackers — newspapers are, I believe, still the most authoritative and well-informed entity we have in this country.

But, to the original point, I do think that blogs more often push the envelope. We bloggers (did you see how smoothly I switched hats there) have so much more freedom, so much more time, so much more space, and maybe we’re writing with more passion and humor and anger and skepticism and joy as a group.

And I think we newspaper writers (OK, I’m getting confused now) can pick up some things from that. Maybe we could have a little more fun. Maybe we could take a side against the bad guys. Maybe we can more passionately ask the hard questions. Maybe we could be a little goofier and more on the cutting edge. Why not? It’s a big world out there.