FanNation - The Republic of Sport

I asked bloggers around the Web whom I admire to answer the following question: Why do you blog?

Henry Abbott is the founder and editor of TrueHoop, one of the most comprensive basketball sites on the web.

I blog, quite simply, because I'm a guy who thinks about the NBA way too much, reads about it way too much, and has been writing about it for free or cheap practically my entire adult life. A blog is the only platform that can keep up with my many thoughts about the NBA.

But I also blog because for me blogging -- with its comments, its links to other sources, its immediacy -- is better than any other medium I have worked in (I have worked as a full-time professional writer for magazines, reporting on the radio, and even a tad in the television industry) for getting across the unvarnished truth.

The irony, of course, is that a lot of media old-timers are convinced that's just exactly what blogs do worst.

Walk with me, though, through what a blog is:

The definition of a blog is a little bit fluid, but most people agree it's a kind of website that is easy for a writer to update, displaying content in reverse-chronological order, with old posts automatically archived in some easy-to-search manner. Blogs also almost always have comments, categories, and RSS feeds.

So, tell me which part of this is terrible?

The fact that it's online? So is every major newspaper, now. Ditto comments, RSS feeds, categories, and searchable archives.

One real difference is that blogs are easier to update than most other sites. But no critic of blogs that I have heard believes that the old web publishing system, with its many snafus and delays, would make a richer long-term experience for readers.

So, that leaves us with showing the newest post first. Somehow or another, reverse chronological display is, according to some bigwigs of American media, dragging sports journalism into the gutter.

I don't get it.

OK, OK, I'm being simple-minded to make a point.

I actually do get it, more than I'm letting on.

But I still get stuck on this part of the debate. People say they have a problem with blogs. But I'm quite sure that what they really mean is that they have a problem with unknown sports writers breaking free of the AP format and making sports pages look old and crusty in the process.

And what media people really have a problem with is the reality that with minimal rules, some bloggers are terribly sloppy with facts.

This is an age-old problem of history, though. We mistake evidence about an individual to be evidence about a whole big category. I

Is the New York Times ridiculous and not credible because the National Enquirer is also a newspaper? Is Frontline mindless because some TV news shows have in-depth stories about the local topless car wash? Is radio news all wholly partial because some stations were created to espouse this or that political agenda?

No, of course not.

The point is that the New York Times is credible because it has readers who have gotten to know it over many years, and have decided it is worthy of their trust. Same with Frontline, and the best of radio news.

And the truth is that more than enough readers realize that the National Enquirer is essentially harmless: Millions might be amused by it, but very few mistake it for real news.

Blog readers ought to make the same kinds of distinctions, and can, very easily. Bloggers are pretty transparent. (For instance, as a blogger, I disclose that I am a fan of the Portland Trail Blazers. You can factor that into your opinion of me. Is my coverage biased? You decide. When I worked for magazines, I was still a fan of the Blazers, but you didn't get to know that then.)

There are millions of blogs, run by all kinds of people. Just like among those who publish on paper, some of them are juvenile. Some of them make stuff up. Some of them have pictures of half-naked women. Some of them do a poor job sourcing stories. Some of them do way too much deducing and not nearly enough picking up the phone and calling people. Some of them read deep things into scant evidence.

But show me the worst of the blogosphere, and I'll show you the worst of mainstream media. It's a stalemate, and that's being generous to mainstream media.

The same thing is slowly starting to happen with blogs, I hope. There are all kinds of wonderful things on blogs every day. What a tremendous gift to have a self-motivated army of creative and thoughtful people, driven by so much passion, doing so much publishing every day. A lot of very promising seeds have been planted in the blogosphere, and the harvest will be coming for many years to come.

Some of those bloggers will, with time, wither and fade. Others will make plenty of money being the National Enquirer of the Web.

But, despite what the critics tell you, some will prove to be trusted resources for serious-minded readers, and I don't think there's anything bad about that.