ResurrectionSong has been a little quiet for the last few days. I guess it could be attributed to blogging malaise, although I would generally say that it’s more a case of general weariness. It’s been a busy few weeks and I still have a few more to go.

What I will say about blogs is this, though: Michele (if you clicked through the VodkaPundit link, you’ve already seen her post) is spot on about what makes for easy blog readership. Controversy, vitriol, infighting, bitching, and general noisiness. And that is almost as wearying as the rest of my workload; I don’t read it and I don’t really want to participate.

The same kind of philosophy that led Daniel Okrent to decry the “eye-goggling pursuit of scoops” in his NYT editorial is the same driving philosophy of much of the blogging world. It’s the search for the “gotcha” moment, for the early report, for being the first so that all the other bloggers have to link your site that compels most people to keep blogging. The worst of journalism is, to me, also the worst of blogging.

What I want to read and what I enjoy far more than the kind of blogging that brought us the “look, John Kerry is pulling a pen out of his jacket pocket in clear violation of the debate agreement” moment that spawned the even more ridiculous “look, Bush is wearing a radio receiver underneath his suit coat” tripe. Neither of those was meaningful or useful--they were just attempts to find a “gotcha” moment that would destroy the election hopes of one candidate or the other.

The absolute worst of reporting is blindly partisan or blindly in search of ratings above all else. I still believe that 60 Minutes would have run the memogate story if the target had been Kerry, but their own search for a scoop led to a miserably useless vetting process for the supporting documentation. Instead of getting a story right (or instead of spending their time on something more meaningful), they went for a cheap ratings boost with almost sophomoric glee.

The best of the blogs is still worth noting, of course. Exposing stories that you wouldn’t otherwise have noticed, impressive analysis of world events, humorous takes on daily stories, and, yes, even some very important “gotcha” moments. Memogate would never have been exposed if it weren’t for the efforts of bloggers. Not me--I was in the camp that wanted to slow down and analyze it before we came to any complete judgments on the authenticity of the memo, a position I still think is responsible while admitting that without the early zeal of some bloggers it may never have been a national story exposing 60 Minutes as peddling a fairytale.

But much of what I think is the best of blogging is the stuff that no one comments on because it isn’t shocking, it isn’t going to bring down a candidate, and it isn’t something that will start an all out war between bloggers. I like the things that are well considered, thorough, and illuminating; something that makes me think instead of just reacting from the gut. There is room for both--in my head, I generally think of them as the agitators and the philosophers, although that is overly simplistic--but it seems that most bloggers see the road to fame, glory, and ad revenue as being the path of the agitator. And, while Oliver Willis may make a living peddling thoughtless, partisan crap, I have no use for him (and that goes for some of the right leaners who don’t make the same money, but do the same thing). I read Jeff G not because he’s a right leaner, but because he’s an original: he’s creative and intelligent, and honestly provocative.

Most writers don’t rise to that level. I know I don’t. But making noise and getting noticed is an easy task; just be a jerk. Witness the gentleman who very publicly delinked a number of high profile bloggers for not having the right (as defined by him) view on the Schiavo story--I’m certain his traffic has never been better, but as to whether he actually managed to add anything to the debate the answer is a resounding “no.” Acrimony is not terribly edifying.

This isn’t an “I’m quitting” rant, an “I hate blogs” rant, or even a public scolding. It’s just me noting that bloggers fall into the same traps that traditional journalists fall into. We do it for precisely the same reason: we are all searching for that one big story that cements our reputation and it seems easier to do it with a scoop than with an original, well-researched, thorough story.

Think of your favorite journalists, though, and think about what kind of writing it is that you most enjoy reading. Is it someone like Mark Morford and his asinine rants? Or is it Chris Hitchens, who can be just as offensive, but who does it with original thoughts, research, and well-formed ideas. Hitchens is maddening to me--when I read him I swing between passionate agreements to passionate disagreements with rarely a stop in between. But I never find him anything less than thought provoking; the only thing I get from Mark Morford and Ted Rall is a profound sense of disgust. That might be fine for the faithful, but it sure as hell isn’t converting new minds to their causes.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m a writer who even approaches the skill of someone like Hitchens, but I know which kind of author I would rather emulate. That acts as a pretty accurate description of what I want to be reading.

PS-- A few days ago, McGehee asked a question that might be related. The answer is actually “no” for me. I’m enjoying what I’ve been writing lately, even if no one else has. I enjoyed writing about Daryl Hall and the Pope. I enjoyed writing about the place politics shouldn’t be taking in the passing of the Pope. What I’ve been enjoying less is reading some sites that I used to read regularly. That’s the part that’s been more difficult for me.

PPS-- Be sure to read Bryan’s thoughts on the subject. I suspect that he’s right in some ways: this is a seasonal thing that will, hopefully, pass.

PPPS-- And Randy has a post that dovetails nicely with this issue.