I think it's important that people understand my thought process involving the initial column, and that will require more words on my end.
But don't worry - I got and read all of your many, many angry e-mails on the topic. Don't think you were ignored, or that your outrage went unnoticed.
We hope to return to our regularly scheduled frivolity next Sunday. Until then, once more unto the breach. . . .
Why dignify and amplify the comments of a blogger [about Raul Ibanez] by repeating them in your column? Even if the context of your column is to criticize the blogger, you risk perpetuating the harm. People who get their sports news solely from TV/radio, the papers or newspapers would know nothing of the blogger's speculation without repetition of it in those legitimate media.
I think you missed the point of my column. You can't ignore anyone anymore. Everyone links to everyone's stuff. Even if I hadn't written about the Midwest Sports Fans post, there were other Web sites/blogs that wrote about it. Hugging Harold Reynolds linked to it and put it on Twitter. The MSF post was already out there, and people were talking about it long before I came along.
And if there are people who only get their news from TV and newspapers, they're quickly dwindling. The lines have blurred between old school media and bloggers. That's why I wrote that all of us - from the biggest traditional media outlets to the smallest blogs - need to be really careful what we say or write because the spotlight shines on everyone now, and far more brightly than in the past. Because of that, stories can get blown out of proportion quicker than ever before. That was the gist of my piece. Some people missed that and also overlooked my defense of Ibanez. I repeat: no one should be accused of taking PEDs without proof, Ibanez included.
I'll cop to joining the conversation and even making it bigger, but I didn't create the controversy. I don't have that much power. Someone said I "spread the blog virus." Truth is, we were already infected.