Sports Bloggers in the Press Box

I'm calling bullshit on this one -- a newbie comes in, makes a bunch of silly assertions in a most amateurish way, gets smacked down and then all of the sudden another newbie arrives, using the same amateurish writing style -- while claiming to be on old-boy media type (which is a jealous blogger term and one that no self-respecting writer would refer to himself as, by the way) and the same tone and then the two exchange backslapping posts, talking about how write they are....

There is no doubt that Your Huckleberry and baconboy are the same freckled 19-year old fan boy steaming because they can't get their blogger's credentials to the local football team's games..... :

That, my friend, is as pathetic as it gets. It is Reel E Reel and Sportsbruh all over, only at least that dude know he is a dumbass.

And the worst part is, both are too stupid to understand that all of their rah rah'ing about blogs has still failed to point out one single solid reason that 99 percent of the bloggers need and/or even deserve to have credentials to legitimate sporting events.

And the wors

 

First of all, I'm not baconboy, don't know who he is or anything about him other than what he has posted on here.

Second, I have been in this business 16 years and have covered everything from Little League to the Major Leagues, from junior high football to NFL and from high school basketball to Division I basketball. I'm a current Division I college beat writer so don't make assumptions you clearly know nothing of. I guarantee my experience is just as vast as yours if it doesn't far outweigh it.

Do I like bloggesr? No.

Do I want a blogger in the pressbox beside me? Hell no.

Do I think they belong in a pressbox? If they prove to have a legitimate audience and are professional themeselves, then I have no problem with it.

Do I want that? No.

Would I prefer bloggers fall off the face of the earth? Yes.

By the way, you had numerous spelling errors in your reply. You might want to clean it up because you are making us "real" journalists look pretty pitiful.

The point is, just accept the way the world is changing around you. Don't fight it. Find a way to live in it, peacefully. Ten years from now, electronic media may dominate so much, we may be the minority in the pressbox.

 

I have problems with most sports blogs for a couple of reasons

The majority of them are poorly written by people who love the sound of they're own keyboarding. They're an exercise in literary masturbation.

There are no editorial controls both in terms of style (see above) and content. Someone can make unsubstantiated claims (hello, Eklund) on a blog that you'd never get away with in traditional media.

What the smart newspapers are doing, like the Globe & Mail, is integrating their print versions and on-line versions of their content. Traditional newspapers are dying if they keep reporting "news". Where they can stomp all over bloggers are the longer, more analytical magazine type pieces because they have the resources.

Before I'd grant any blogger access to a press box, I'd want to review their blogs and make the judgement on the quality of the blog.

 

I've always believed internet media to have a lot in common with newspapers of the 19th century. They were comparatively inexpensive to produce and most, if not all, had very slanted points of view. Many fell by the wayside for various reasons but many survived and, as time passed, evolved into the print product of today.

There are tremendous opportunities out here in cyberland - the net and blogs are not going away.

 

Because they want to provide in-depth coverage of their chosen subject to their readership. One single, solid reason.

 

Someone mentioned earlier about trust, and what newspapers do have is a trusted brand name. Despite everything else, that counts for a lot.

On the other hand, on a niche basis, many blogs are becoming trusted brand names as well. Not to the level of newspapers, but anybody who thinks that sites such as Off Wing Opinion, True Hoop, Mid-Majority and Football Outsiders (among others) are merely the rantings of fanboy loosers is delusional. All have featured original reporting, for one thing, and/or a level of analysis desired by a certain niche of fans. As a reporter -- much less your own newspaper -- dismisses these folks at your own peril. I mean, sheesh, didn't you learn from Bob Dylan that you don't (or shouldn't) need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?

 

By the way. I don't care what anyone says, you give something away for free (i.e. blogs) it devalues the product.

 

I know of a blogger who touches on all subjects. He works for a newspaper and then blogs on things as they happen. He is a trusted source and his blogging makes it impossible to be competitive with him in breaking stories. He branches out into sports as well, making it harder on my side of the building as wel.

When newspapers really grasp ahold of blogging as a way to reach audiences themselves, then use the actual morning paper for the final piece, we will be much safer than we are right now. People want their information fast. We need to learn this is one way to give it to them fast and still protect our product.

 

Huck

You said something I agree with and have been saying for two years now: The net for instant updates, instant analysis, quick quips and opinions; newspapers for feature stories, reactionary pieces and in depth advances.

 

In total agreement SoSueMe. Newspapers need to embrace the net and use it to make their product the most trusted source available. It's the only way. Glad there is someone else who agrees.

 

Looks like you fell asleep at the keyboard, there. Must be the mark of a true professional.

Listen, you can hate the "bloggers." I've agreed there are a lot of punks out there. But there are some very good ones, too, and the best ones are winning the battle. Don't like it? Too bad.

Maybe you should go out there and see what they're doing so well.

As for my credentials, not that I should have to defend myself over and over because you're too thick to grasp what's happening with your industry, but I'm not a "fanboy." I'm a reporter at a major daily in a Top 10 american market. I've written for some of the biggest magazines in the country (is Esquire good enough for you? Conde Nast?). I can get credentials to any event I want just about anywhere in the country ... sports or otherwise. Ever been to the Playboy Mansion? I have. Just interviewed Francis Ford Coppola the other day. Have you ever interviewed Coppola? I had dinner with David and Don Shula two months ago. Ever had dinner with the Shulas? I was on the set of an upcoming Clooney flick last month. You've ever been on a Hollywood set? No? Maybe your'e a fanboy who can't get credientialed.

So sit down punk.

I launched my own site a couple years ago because I had a concept for which there was no room in any newspapar or magazine. It wasn't a column, it was a concept and, well, as we've seen here, newspaper people have a little trouble grasping "concepts" that are foreign to them. And it's proven a pretty decent concept ... over 3 million page views (per month) in season, and growing pretty solidly, and we've broken a lot of stories picked up by the "legit" media. Along the way, I've come across some very, very good people who, quite frankly, are smarter and hipper and doing better things than what's found in the newspapers. The web is cheaper, more accessible and more versatile than print ... and therefore it's the future.

The notion that, because you work at a newspaper, you are somehow on a different playing field is the height of arrogance. Get past your negative biases and get out there and see what's happening on the web. As I said, the public, and not some D-bag reporter protecting his turf, is going to determine who's legitimate media and who's not. The BigTown Times isn't credible because the people inside are saying it's credible; it's credible because the public consumes the content it provides. The public is smart enough to figure out what's credible and what's not ... if it wasn't, then what's that so about your "credibility" at your local rag?

You know, the guys who built sailing ships back in the 1800s probably looked down on those dastardly upstart steamship makers. How'd that work out for them?

 

By the way, the notion that I have to defend myself because I work in a medium some of you fail to comprehend is YOUR problem, not mine, and indicative of the problem with newspapers these days.

It's like the French classicists shunning the impressionists. It's really no different.

Listen, I came here because I work in both worlds and thought I could offer some insight into both. I thought it'd be a voice you wanted to hear. But, apparently, some folks here only want to hear things that make them feel good about their business.

And then they wonder why newspapers are having problems.