I've found myself pondering lots of new media questions recently, especially after the bloggers vs. AP affair from last week.

Though that battle was over rights, preconditions, money and fear, one of the bigger questions that emerged was where bloggers get their content and how they (and the AP for that matter) fit into the "Age of New Media."

This week another dispatch has me wondering what's the end game for bloggers and what they write.

Perhaps you've heard of Will Leitch, author of "God Save the Fan," and soon to be former editor of the sports blog Deadspin.

In his last week on the job he sent what amounts to a warning shot to other sports bloggers: Stay true to who you are and what you write.

A little back story: A few months ago Leitch was part of what can now be called an infamous segment on Bob Costas' HBO show "Costas Now" about sports, sports writing and the Internets.

What was most interesting about the episode was the spectacular explosion by author Buzz Bissinger at Leitch and blogs in general. To sum up, the author of books like "Friday Night Lights" and "Three Nights in August," basically said blogs, and bloggers like Leitch could not carry (and were not fit to carry) his jock strap. (Watch the video for yourself. NOTE - includes some colorful language. Seriously.)

This moment spawned another great blogstorm with online writers drawing battle lines between themselves and the old guard (mainstream) sports writers.

The Boston Phoenix has an interesting look at the grudge match between old and new media in the sports world, and wonders with the rest of the mainstream staring to play nice with online, why can't the sporting geeks.

On Sunday the LA Times ran a story where a number of sports bloggers ruminated on whether it was time to class up the world of sports blogging.

And this brings us back to Leitch and his central question - why would you change what you're doing now? Is it because you feel a newfound sense of responsibility that was absent before? Is it because the old hounds of the sports game have made you feel shame? Is it book deals?

He asks:
"If something is worthwhile to post if you're getting 10 readers a day, shouldn't you stand behind it if you have a million readers a day? Changing what you do because you've become more popular is exactly why Bill Plaschke and Rick Reilly have declined so dramatically. Isn't that what this is all supposed to be against?"

Now while Leitch is talking specifically about sports bloggers, doesn't the question really apply to everyone in the blogging game and what got them there?

In some ways it seems to come down to that old fashion idea of "selling out." Is it like when your favorite band gets signed by the big label and their music sounds more produced. Or when your idealistic friend takes a buttoned-down job at a hedge fund.

The world of blogs is no different, as there are plenty of examples of writers taking jobs with larger, more established newspapers, magazines or other publications. And let's not forget book deals, plenty of book deals.

With blogs and other new media soaring in popularity and readers and old media scrambling to realign, isn't this the best time for bloggers to do what they do best, or what got them noticed in the first place.

It seems like years ago the question was where blogs fit into the media landscape, and the fight by their authors for legitimacy. Arguably bloggers have helped remake that landscape, so do they still need to find that "legitimacy" or approval?

Does it all come down to what motivates people to write blogs? Are blogs just vehicles to bigger success?

E-mail this entry to a friend