If political blogs covered sports

Conor Friedersdorf has a low opinion of the political blogosphere’s short-term outlook on long-term stories like the US health care fight:

If the political blogosphere covered basketball games, we’d not only be told about shots, makes, and misses, but every rotation of the ball on the way to the hoop. “He shoots, the ball appears to be on course, it’s getting closer and still seems like it’ll make it, I give it a 90 percent chance of going in, IT HITS THE BACK RIM, it didn’t make it, it definitely appears as though it may bounce out, it’s going to bounce on the rim a second time, now it’s perched on the lip and may go in or out — an instant poll of the crowd confirms that 75 percent of people think it’ll wind up a miss — my God it’s actually falling into the basket, this moment it is falling through the net, it’s a basket!”

There’s some truth in this, and I confess to following a lot of that commentary. But what is our alternative? The blogosphere’s close focus may be myopic, but it’s still better than almost anything in the mainstream media. The mainstream version of this would be:

“He shoots, but he’ll never make it. It’s not going in. History says it won’t go in. Better shooters than him have tried, and they couldn’t make the shot. Chris, can you tell us a bit about past shooters who have tried this shot and failed? [Insert pedantic talking head discussion here.] His best chance at making that basket was much earlier in the game, when he still had the support of the fans, but he spent far too much time on the sidelines and the team has lost its momentum. Look at that, the defenders are all over him, it’s not going to make it, oh, this is going to be ugly. He staked his whole reputation on this one shot and it’s not going to — holy shit, the ball went in!”