I wrote in my sports blog after the last NBA draft that I wasn’t going to give the Spurs a grade because their pick while questionable was made by people with a track record of finding gems (Parker and Ginobli might ring a bell). I was accused on copping out.
Then I wrote in my blog that social media was both good and bad for writing as a skill/art form. This is somewhat of a cop out but I tried to explain what the improvements and drawbacks were.
Then today as I struggled to decided on topic to write I considered writing about whether we should choose an audience or not for our blogs. My answer was going to be a resounding: it depends.
So the question I asked myself and you is: Is copping out bad?
On this one I will take a firm stance. Copping out is NOT bad.
Everyone wants you to take a bold stance. Bold stances are more interesting, catchier, cause more of a commotion and conversation. If your goal is to be interesting then yeah you should probably take a stance. It’s why Steven A. Smith has a job.
Yet, despite what Bill O’rielly types want you to believe this world is not black and white.
If you want to be accurate though, sometimes you have to admit there’s multiple sides to the issue, or that maybe the people you’re analyzing know more then you do. The question is can you figure out what those issues are? Can you explain what’s making you cop out?
I’m in no way ashamed at my cop outs. I analyzed and graded every other team and my lack of grade for San Antonio is probably enough of a statement on what I thought of the pick. I pointed out the good elements that were coming from social media writing and the poor things. Had I written about writing for an audience I would have told the situations that dictate your need for it.
So I think copping out is just fine and I’m hoping you’ll understand why sometimes I don’t make THE bold statements.