blog vs. news story

So I'm reading Rob Curley's excellent blog post about how the Las Vegas Sun used its website to swarm coverage of last week's fire at the Monte Carlo casino. In it, Rob effuses, and deservedly so, about how the Sun's coverage "started with a live blog," and built from there to include photos, video, background, etc. Rob made spot-on conclusions, IMO, about the necessity for us to "[show] your readers that your newspaper’s website is the only place to go for information on this story."

Amen.

But . . . I wonder why "a live blog" is necessarily the way to handle a big breaking story.

A blog can be published instantly. It can be updated at any time. Readers can interact. Others can link to it.

A news story on your website's homepage can be published instantly. It can be updated at any time. Readers can interact. Others can link to it.

So, is there any reason why a newsroom would want to use a blog, instead of the lede spot on its news homepage, to cover a breaking story?

Consider, for example, that news blogs often are one or more layers beneath the homepage. Now, maybe a good CMS can put a blog right on the homepage, but ours can't (yet). At the Sun, for example, the "Daily Fix" blog, which promises "continuous news updates," requires two clicks to find. Maybe it didn't during the fire itself, but it does now.

Do we not want our "continuous news updates" to appear with, you know, the news? On the homepage?

Lest anyone think I'm criticizing the Sun, please understand I think they did a fabulous job. I'm just wondering about the wisdom of using a blog platform to cover news when the regular news webpage can be every bit as instantaneous and interactive.