Joe Posnanski

We have a post coming up at some point here, but first I did want to post this comment from Kevin in case you missed it in the comment section because I think it makes a really good point:

I respect your work very, very much, but your previous comment that if W.C. Heinz were 25 years old today he’d be writing a blog is wrong on about 13 different levels. Heinz would most likely be writing long narrative stories about the Iraq war, ala George Packer to Steven Coll. He was a reporter’s reporter, one who loved dialog, and felt there was a lot more truth to be unearthed in observing and recording history than there was commenting about it. He would have had a lot of outlets for his work beyond just the Internet. All due respect, but those who knew Heinz found your statement to be quite the reach.

I have nothing at all to argue with Kevin’s major point because I believe it is dead on … Heinz was indeed a reporter’s reporter But I do have one disagreement — and it makes me think I wasn’t as clear as I should have been about this whole thing with Heinz and blogs.

So let me make my point again: I never was suggesting that Heinz would be writing blogs about firing coaches or that he would be printing photos of quarterbacks in hot tubs or spewing some off the top opinion about Roger Clemens or having silly polls about regular or peanut M&Ms. And I was also never suggestion that he would ONLY write blogs. So let me be clear: He would not. Absolutely not. He would, from what I know about him, despise and avoid that goofy stuff (well, maybe not the M&Ms poll — he might have been a big peanut M&Ms guy).

Let me repeat it one more time: Heinz was a master reporter and a brilliant writer, and there’s no doubt in my mind that if he was 25 years old today he would be a master reporter and brilliant writer. I don’t want there to be even the slightest crack here: I don’t think W.C. Heinz would be any less the man, the reporter or the gentleman in today’s world.

My point is: Why wouldn’t he write a blog? And it makes me think, once again, that some people miss the point that a blog can be ANYTHING. Maybe it’s the name: Blog. Maybe people see that name and cannot get beyond a certain image. But a blog really can be whatever the author want s it to be. It can be long, narrative stories about the Iraq war. It can be haunting and poetic reporting about the horrors of Darfur. It can (and is) absolutely anything.

My point is taken right from Kevin’s comment: George Packer writes a blog. Steve Coll, I believe, is now director of the New America Foundation, a nonprofit policy institute which, of course has a blog. And for that matter, Andrew Sullivan writes a blog, Laura Rozen writes a blog, James Wolcott writes a blog (and he mentioned me!), Malcolm Gladwell writes a blog, and so on and so on and so on.

People from everywhere who love writing are drawn to the blogosphere — and how can you not be? It’s unlimited space. It’s an open canvas. Some of it is lousy. Some of it is brilliant. That’s just the way it goes with open canvases.

I have no doubt that even in today’s crazy world of newspaper layoffs and magazine downsizing that a 25-year-old W.C. Heinz would write for magazines and newspapers and books and all that. But I honestly do not get why anyone who knows, loves, respects, admires Heinz would take insult to the notion that one of the really fine writers of the 20th century would take advantage of the Internet too. It’s a big, blog world out there.