Andrew Sullivan - hugely successful political blogger and former editor of The New Republic who now has an editorial position at The Atlantic - has a new essay describing why he blogs. Sullivan has a long history as an essayist, book author and writer in more established literary print traditions. But he's also a blogger, so he occupies a strange place where he is now a member of the Old and New Guard of Media Types.

What does this have to do with MMA? Not much or anything even. But this site is a blog. And as a blog in MMA, we are often ridiculed as unprofessional. We are banned by the largest and most successful MMA organization in the existence from covering live events. And most notably, we are labeled as simply unaccountable to anyone or anything. All of the charges are false, of course, but Sullivan's response to this particular charge captured my attention:

And so blogging found its own answer to the defensive counterblast from the journalistic establishment. To the charges of inaccuracy and unprofessionalism, bloggers could point to the fierce, immediate scrutiny of their readers. Unlike newspapers, which would eventually publish corrections in a box of printed spinach far from the original error, bloggers had to walk the walk of self-correction in the same space and in the same format as the original screwup. The form was more accountable, not less, because there is nothing more conducive to professionalism than being publicly humiliated for sloppiness. Of course, a blogger could ignore an error or simply refuse to acknowledge mistakes. But if he persisted, he would be razzed by competitors and assailed by commenters and abandoned by readers. In an era when the traditional media found itself beset by scandals as disparate as Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Dan Rather, bloggers survived the first assault on their worth. In time, in fact, the high standards expected of well-trafficked bloggers spilled over into greater accountability, transparency, and punctiliousness among the media powers that were. Even New York Times columnists were forced to admit when they had been wrong.

Sullivan's essay is more a look into what compels him to blog, why blogging is important for journalism and what blogging's role will play in the future. But it is also a defense of the blogging format from a person who can answer the doubts about blogging from the perspective of the traditional journalist. It's worth a read and provides an excellent look into what the blogger goes through as they navigate this comparitvely new and exciting medium.