Posnanski on Costas

In the wake of the Bissinger thing, Posnanski -- who has been critical of Costas' handling of it -- tells a wonderful story about how important Costas was to his career. Everyone who has a passion for something has an origin story, and this is Posnanski's (interestingly enough, mine involves Costas too, but that's not important right now).

I won't block quote -- you should read the whole thing -- but the upshot is that Costas played a critical role in the development of Joe Posnanski's career, and he did so by being decent, and supportive, and inspiring. It's really a great story.

But.

And you shouldn't read this next part until you've read Posnanski's story. I'll wait. Done? OK, good.

But, having read all that, it strikes me that the Bob Costas Joe met in 1988 is a very different Bob Costas than exists today. Today, Costas takes issue with bloggers because, in his mind, they are uncredentialed and inexperienced and unpolished and in a lot of ways really rough around the edges. They're the ones lowering the discourse, Costas argues, and because of that, they represent some sort of threat to western civilization. So he marginalizes them. He denigrates them. He brings in surrogates to attack them on his show.

Question: in what way was Joe Posnanski v.1988 any different than a blogger today? While I suppose he technically had a credential as an agate clerk, he was, by his own admission, inexperienced, and unpolished and in a lot of ways really rough around the edges. Obviously talent takes over and Posnanski would have been just fine one way or another, but the fact that Bob Costas engaged him and encouraged him made a tremendous difference in his life. He did not view Posnanski as some sort of threat, and did not dismiss him because his talent and the quality of his work was not to the level Costas was accustomed to seeing from newspaper guys.

What has changed in 20 years? The only relevant thing I can see is the technology, because there isn't a damn bit of difference between 1988 Joe Posnanski and a hungry young baseball blogger doing what he does because he loves the game and wants to make it his life. Sure, many blogs are garbage and aren't written with that level of passion and precision, but the same could be said about the work of many cub reporters in 1988 (they probably all ended up going to law school).

Where's the support now? Where's the understanding? Why are bloggers any more of a threat than a hungry young reporter was in 1988? When did Costas stop being confident enough with himself and his career that he felt he could no longer lend a supportive word to a novice?

Thankfully, the next generation has plenty of people who are serving the same purpose for them that Costas served for Posnanski. Whether it's by accident or otherwise, Posnanski may be the best example, as he is the very embodiment of the synergies that are possible when the MSM and blogosphere are combined, with his work in one medium serving to inform and elevate his work in the other.

There are others who are not afraid of technology. Who understand it or, even if they don't, realize that the technology is only incident to the writing and that the public, as always, will ultimately gravitate to the best content regardless of how it is delivered.

Thank goodness for them.

Update: Costas speaks to Aaron Barnhart, and makes it clear that, to the extent he has any animus towards blogs, it's not inspired by feeling threatened. Probably a very good point to note because, no matter how delusional bloggers are sometimes, Bob Costas is right in noting that he is not in any danger of losing his job or stature to them. Of course he does note that newspaper guys are, and despite his claims that he has no anti-blogger agenda, he has given voice to so much of that insecurity, whether he intended to or not.

I guess I'll close all this out by noting that Costas, in the interview anyway, is quickly able to cite examples of good blogs (he doesn't identify them by name, but he makes allusions to U.S.S. Mariner and Baseball Prospectus) and quickly able to articulate his view that Deadspin is where the bullies and louts play. The fact that he knew that already shows that he had an interest in putting what he felt was the worst possible face on the sports blogoshpere for the purposes of his show the other night. If he didn't, he would have had Derek Zumsteg or Christina Kahrl or someone on.

(thanks to Matt Magnone for the heads up on the Barnhart piece).