What's the outlook for sports journalists?

shotglass:

In many ways, that is what I am saying and where I think we might be headed. There will be a lot more to read and much of it will be of a particular niche. I want to know what is going on with Virginia Tech basketball, for instance, and I far more enjoy -- even as a former journalist -- what I read on TSL than what I get from Mark Berman in the Roanoke Times who nearly always takes a point of view that I see as negative.

On the other hand, if he were dishing the dirt on University of Virginia basketball, I would love it. But most of what I care about concerns Virginia Tech. Here's another example. The Michigan stuff that appeared last year in the Ann Arbor paper. If I were a Michigan alumn, I would not be applauding the paper or the reporter. I would simply stop reading the paper and turn elsewhere for my information on Michigan. That choice did not exist in the very recent "old days", but it does now.

The questions are: How will journalism change as a result? How will people attract a large enough audience to make advertisers care? How will people make a living at this -- or even will they make a living at this? Are we headed for the days of citizen journalism when anyone with a computer and a keyboard can convey information? And, finally, can newspapers remain a part of the mix?

I hope so and I think so, because at a minimum they provide an important baseline, but the approach has to change. Clearly much of what has been covered has not been what will attract and retain readers. And too much of it involves too many judgements and cheap shots from people (speaking from experience) who are in no place to judge. The customers (readers) are responding because now they have choices as they have never had them before.

 

There's no doubt there is a lot of truth in what you're saying here, especially with the websites that cover college programs. Many people only want positive or totally neutral news -- which if people did studies I'm guessing at least 80 percent of newspapers' coverage of teams over the years would fall into those categories.

Still, there is a popular website that covers Florida State sports and it provides a buffet of tidbits and news every day. Yet there are often days when the most popular topic by far on the message boards is ripping the mainstream media's coverage of a particular "negative'' topic (i.e. cheating scandal, player arrests, etc.). Of course, less of that now since Orlando and St. Pete are about the only papers paying attention to the program regularly outside of Tallahassee.

When there is "negative news'' the website typically flashes the very basic information up, and then puts it on the message boards and it's bombs away. One thing I've noticed though is that it seems only about 30 percent of the site's total audience are the people blasting away on the message boards. Most don't comment. They simply go to the website for regular updates and get back to their lives.

So there could be a future for team-specific online sites that practice all the modern journalism we've come to know but still do the old-fashioned enterprise and in-depth work that many on this board enjoy. Only time will tell. I'm working on a project right now that I hope provides a true indication in the next year whether to remain in the field or finally get that Circle K job -- and yes, I've already bought a Smith&Wesson to prepare if I have to go that route.

 

I think this is what bothers me the most about the decline of newspapers. (Well, I guess it's second to the fact that I might not have a job soon). I don't think the Web does as good a job of organizing things so that we read things we SHOULD read and not just the things we WANT to read. There is more info out there than ever before, but I think people are less informed than they've ever been. Sure, there are many people who make an effort to be informed, but I think it's a real problem, and our society will become more fragemtned because of it. Maybe the Web will catch up and become a little more standardized (like newspapers), but it seems like it's going to take a while.

And maybe it's because I'm not a rabid fanboi of any teams, really, but I just cannot fathom not wanting to hear negative information on my favorite teams. I certainly understand some fans' perceptions that certain writers/publications are out to get their teams, but to say you don't want to hear any negative information? That's just silly. There is good and bad, in life and in sports, and I want to know about all of it so I can make my own judgments.

And, Scott, best of luck in your work and in your pursuit of an answer to this question. I think there is still going to be a market for good journalism, but it might just take a while for everything to shake out.

 

Someone should ask Mike Potter in Durham, N.C., for his opinion right now.

 

DirtyDeeds:

Yes, I want to know what is happening, but I don't want some guy with an axe to grind putting it in an unnecessarily negative slant, especially if the intent is to win the praise of colleagues more than it is to inform those interested in the subject. And I do prefer the good to the bad. To this day, I think the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski stuff was beyond overdone. I far prefer the approach to John Kennedy, especially when many of the people offering the negative coverage are doing things far, far worse than what they portray.

For instance, I just don't see the point of what Selena Roberts is writing about Alex Rodriguez after the initial stuff that came out, and I flat-out don't believe a good portion of what has been publicized about her bood (I have not read it; nor do I intend to).

Part of your issue, I surmise, is that you take it as a bad thing to be a "fan", as indicated by your use of the term fanboi. I have just the opposite view. The teams I love, I truly love -- and much that is offered as "good" journalism I view as irrelevant, unnecessary and not as credible as what I find on the message boards to which I referred earlier in this thread.

But, the bottom line, is that readers -- "customers" -- now have choices -- and in droves they are choosing the positive far more often than the negartive -- or at least the better informed, which too often are not the professional journalists.

 

If you think the people on message boards are generally better informed than professional journalists, I really cannot help you. And I have no issue with being a fan, only with being a blind follower who can't accept (or doesn't want) the truth about his/her favorite team. And fanboi is a commonly used term around here, not a shot at you. Sure, there are some journalists who like to highlight the negative in programs (I know a few), but I don't think it's as common as you make it out to be.

 

Dirty:

I did not take the use of the term fanboi as a shot at me -- just as a point of derision toward fans in general (which is an important point). Without people who care deeply about sports (mostly fans), there would be little need for sports journalists. Whether you personally hold that view, it is commonly held by many (most?) in the sporting press.

My contention is that because of competition (the internet) that needs to change. If not, those interested will go elsewhere. Some of the "scandals" and other stuff that is reported in sports just is not worth it. (For the best example I can think of, I refer again to Selena Roberts).

 

Depends on the journalist and what sort of knowledge is important to you. I guarantee there are a lot of guys on northsidebaseball.com who know the Cubs organization better than the beat writers.

 

There's a difference, in my view, between a fanboi and a fan. I am a fairly passionate fan, and I love reading about sports. But to me, fanbois take sports way too seriously and are irrational about (and can't take criticism of) their teams.

I don't disagree with you on Roberts/A-Rod. Certainly, there seems to be an agenda there, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I don't buy that there are many professional journalists with vendettas against the teams they cover. Sorry. If that is the case with VT, I'm sorry to hear it. But it might just be your perception.

And certainly there are plenty on the message boards, blogs and other places with plenty of credibility and sources. And I'd bet a huge chunk of them are displaced professional journalists, like Scott Carter, perhaps? His experience on a message board/fan site was what brought this issue up to begin with.

 

Sorry dude, if you think changing means staying away from negative news, which your posts seem to indicate, then I'd rather sports journalism goes away than "change."

Or lemme put it in terms you may understand: Who's going to find out that negative Virginia news you Tech fans want?

Take the bad with the good. It's part of the deal.

 

The sad thing is that the majority of fans who read message boards see things exactly the same way jemaz described. Any story that isn't blatantly positive toward the program is ripped up and down as being negative on the message boards I read, and I think that is pretty universal among especially college sports fans.
USC fans don't want the LA Times to write about scandals with OJ Mayo and Reggie Bush. They want to read about who will be the next OJ Mayo and Reggie Bush, and anything else is "negative."

 

This outlook of positive-all-the-time really darts around the outer edges of reality.

Imagine Ohio State having Maurice Clarett running up and down the field one season -- and then suddenly, he's gone. No NFL career to speak of. Am I to believe that those who bleed red and white don't want to know the path Maurice Clarett went down?