Skip to content

Quote of the Day: Some meta-bloggy things

May 18, 2012, 1:32 PM EDT

Meta

As always, give this one a pass if you don’t care about the navel-gazing stuff about blogging (and a bit of politics, but not directly), but I find it fascinating, so whatever. And yes, this rambles a bit, but I think I get to a point that is useful for our purposes.

This quote came from Andrew Sullivan today:

A blogger who is not prepared to make a total fool out of himself is not a real blogger.

It’s a satisfying quote in and of itself, but it’s made more fascinating in context and I want to unpack that a bit.

For those who don’t know him, Sullivan is a political blogger. One of the first political bloggers, actually, and one of the most widely read ones at that. And he’s terribly controversial too for any number of reasons. Some of the controversy is rooted in his personal life, career path and history. In more recent years it’s because he’s kind of an odd duck, politically speaking: he’s a long-time conservative who, since the middle of the past decade or so, has more or less gone to war with the conservative/Republican establishment (and they with him).

Part of this is philosophy and a big disagreement between he and his peers regarding what conservatism truly is. Part of it is Sullivan’s repudiation of the Iraq War, of which he was originally a staunch supporter. Part of it is that he is a huge fan of Obama and sharp critic of the current GOP. Part of it is that he’s just unique: you don’t find too many dudes who are Oxford-educated, devoutly Catholic, openly-gay (and HIV-positive), pro-gay marriage with a long string of conservative bona fides, jobs and positions who suddenly becomes a champion of a ton of lefty causes while still claiming to be a conservative.  We love labels in this country and Sullivan doesn’t wear many of them well.

The context of that quote:  Sullivan has taken some hits recently for claiming to be highly critical of Obama while really being a fanboy. I actually see both sides of this. He is critical of Obama on a lot of things. Torture, civil liberties, some cowardly foreign policy positions and some other things.  But it’s also the case that it seems like nothing short of Obama killing someone in cold blood with a Glock on national television will cause him to change his view of the man. Kind of a tough position to be in when you claim — as Sullivan’s personal motto does — that he’s “of no party or clique.” Fact is, he’s emotional. People try to slam him (with some homophobia implied, I believe) by calling  him “excitable”, but he’s basically an emotional writer.

Today Sullivan copped to a lot of that, but offered this defense (and here is where this starts to be relevant for us):

A blog updated every 20 minutes or so can only reveal a blogger’s human gyrations in the kind of granular detail a weekly columnist or less frenzied blogger can avoid. It is not always pretty; but I always try to keep it honest and open. Maybe I should be ashamed. I certainly feel exposed. And I wish I were omniscient and prescient and never had emotional responses to events … but that wouldn’t be much fun would it?

I agree with Sullivan on some things and disagree with him on others.  But it is an absolute fact that, as a blogger, I model myself after him. This was a conscious decision back when I started out in 2007. Originally in terms of blog frequency — I think Sullivan’s popularity has a lot to do with the fact that he posts A LOT — but eventually in terms of temperament too.

No, I’m not as emotional as he is, but I really do believe in the idea that a blog is an organic, reactive medium that should best be read as a whole over time. That the blogger, if he wants to create and speak to a community, has to be willing to react quickly and from the heart even if it means being wrong sometimes. To not try to be omniscient or pretend that he didn’t totally whiff on something once when writing about that topic again. To believe what you believe and to state it strongly, but to be prepared to change your position when the facts change on the ground and to not spend too much time trying to tortuously bend old positions into new ones as if they were always consistent. Human reasoning and learning doesn’t work that way.

I don’t always do that, of course. I have blind and stubborn spots. And of course this is a baseball blog not a political blog like Sullivan’s, so the stakes aren’t exactly as high, meaning that one need not look as fearless or foolish when those inevitable “human gyrations” occur.  But that is the goal and it is the thinking.

And it’s why I usually criticize writers who approach baseball from a position of authority, as if they know it all and you readers don’t. It’s why I laugh at people who slam me in the comments because I’m changing my position on something. What, we can’t learn too?  It’s just baseball.  Sure, I thought Bryce Harper was a punk when I first encountered him, but that was a kneejerk reaction. I feel differently now. So what? You never change your mind?

OK, enough of that navel gazing. I just like to throw this kind of stuff out there from time to time in order to make sure people know where I’m coming from.

  1. largebill - May 18, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    Craig,

    You lost me twice in that article. First you called Sullivan a conservative. Then you referred to him as “devoutly” Catholic. Um, hard to consider someone devoutly Catholic if they openly disagree with the church in several areas. However, you were right on in diagnosing him as “emotional” rather than fact based in his political commentary.

    • davidpom50 - May 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM

      …I think the whole point of that paragraph was that Sullivan (whom I am not at all familiar with outside of what Craig just wrote) is both all of those things AND none of those things. Or, as Craig put it, “We love labels in this country and Sullivan doesn’t wear many of them well.”

    • Craig Calcaterra - May 18, 2012 at 2:05 PM

      Now now, you know very well that the entire point of the contention are the warring definitions of conservative he and others have. You may disagree with him, but he does, constantly, make a case for his own conservativism, writing entire books about it.

    • cogitobaseballergosum - May 18, 2012 at 4:15 PM

      I know many devout Catholics, including laity, clergy and instructors at a Catholic university, and none of them agree with the Vatican on all issues. There’s a huge disconnect between Vatican policy and the beliefs of many (most?) grassroots-level Catholics.

  2. seeinred87 - May 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM

    Good stuff. It seems like too often people are afraid to take a stand on something right away for fear of being wrong or changing their minds later on. That kind of stuff is good for promoting discussion though. And I think that being wrong or changing your position on something is actually a good thing sometimes; it forces you to think more critically.

    • danaking - May 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

      The trick is not to take a public position until you have thought about something. Releasing a visceral, knee-jerk reaction into the wild is asking for trouble. If the blogger has a reasoned explanation for Position 1, then Position 2 should be just as well reasoned, and more likely to be accepted.

      A flip-flop is “I said I believed that, and now I say I believe this.’

      Growth is, “I believed that because…; now i believe this because…”

      There are miles of difference between the two.

      Thanks, Craig. Good, thought provoking post.

      • seeinred87 - May 18, 2012 at 2:42 PM

        You summed up what I was trying to say I think. I didn’t mean that people should put out knee-jerk reactions, just that it’s OK to change your mind, or even be wrong about something, as long as you can defend your position

  3. scareduck - May 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    Any thumbnail bio of Sullivan’s recent work is necessarily incomplete without his pursuit of one of the strangest stories in the 2008 election cycle, that of the circumstances of the birth Sarah Palin’s child Trig. (There’s a long list of such stories, but because Sullivan doesn’t use tags in his blog, we don’t have a good archive of them as a category; here’s one such, and another.) Eventually, Salon ran a well-researched rebuttal to his claims, which — IIRC — he eventually accepted. But along the way, he annoyed a lot of conservatives who felt that Palin shouldn’t have to answer for questions of judgment about her behavior prior to Trig’s birth. (Really? You’re on a 10+ hour flight only hours before your child is due?)

    Palin is surely one of the most loathsome and idiotic figures in American politics to arise in the last decade. She acts as a kind of litmus test for whether you believe competence or party should be the deciding factor in elections. To this day, her defenders label her deer-in-the-headlights performances on TV as somehow “ambush journalism”, as though a professional politician shouldn’t be able to answer softball questions without stammering patently incoherent responses. But Sullivan half convinced himself of something that never really was, and failed to do his own due diligence in ways that were, in retrospect, quite obvious.

  4. chadjones27 - May 18, 2012 at 2:38 PM

    Good post.
    That’s what I like about this blog; you can come here for baseball or, occasionally, these types of articles that relate other-worldly things to baseball. Sort of. Maybe. Either way, good work.

    • IdahoMariner - May 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM

      That’s basically what I had to go hunting for my password to log I and say…
      I dig this blog because y’all are mostly level-headed, thoughtful purveyors of baseball, with some hitchhiker’s guide and batman thrown in, with side trips to things that you can mostly relate to baseball. thanks for this one.

  5. Gamera the Brave - May 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM

    Well said, sir. Growth > Dogma.

    • The Dangerous Mabry - May 18, 2012 at 4:15 PM

      Don’t knock Dogma. It had a hell of a cast, and Salma Hayek as an “exotic dancer” is just a triumph.

      • Gamera the Brave - May 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM

        Dogma is one of my all time faves!
        Salma Hayek…..

  6. willsolo - May 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM

    IT’S JUST A WASTE OF MY TIME!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's to blame for Cubs tarp fiasco?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3635)
  2. M. Cuddyer (3102)
  3. K. Bryant (2526)
  4. A. Garcia (2431)
  5. W. Myers (2291)
  1. J. Werth (2249)
  2. A. McCutchen (2197)
  3. Y. Molina (2189)
  4. G. Richards (2038)
  5. M. Fiers (1961)