What's the outlook for sports journalists?

career paths that include going from covering a national title game to hs swimming to the copy desk.

 

I have this debate with readers all the time through e-mail (and occasionally in person).

As a fan, is it inconsequential to you how your team wins? Does is matter if they cheat? Do you not want your boys or girls to do it the right way?

Is it really winning if you cheat?

I appreciate the honest people who tell me, "No, I don't care, I just want to beat (rivals') asses every year!" What kills me is the, "Well, (rivals) cheat, too, and you don't see their media going after them!"

The niche recruiting sites on my beat break a lot of news by scratching the coaches' backs. They have an unofficial partnership. They get together and discuss prospects and overall recruiting strategy from time to time. I know this. The other guys on the beat know this. But what do you do? I'm a journalist, and I won't play ball with them to get a jump on breaking news from time to time. When I break news, I know I've done it the right way, and that means something to me. Unfortunately, that means my breaks are often the bad news — because everyone knows the recruiting sites aren't going to break any bad news; even they joke about that after a few beers — and it creates an environment around the players and coaches that the print guys are out to get them, and their recruiting site buddies are there to protect them. That's seeped into the administration, too, and things are getting worse on that end.

I understand why these recruiting-based sites operate like they do, from a business standpoint. They're attracting talented, hard-working reporters and bringing them in to feed their machines, and they're growing at impressive rates. But it's not journalism. It's PR. And I wish there was a way to change that, but like the fall of print newspapers, I'm not sure there's an answer.

 

Hammer Pants:

You're right, those websites aren't going anywhere, and the majority of them are PR machines and places for fans to pretend to be "insiders.'' There are some posters who have good information from time to time on the FSU sites, but there are way more swing and misses by "fans in the know.''

Of course, just having a voice on the message boards is a huge reason why these sites are so popular. When I was with the website, I thought it was very important to make sure the front page was always alive and updated with fresh stories and blogs, but I'm told by many people who like these sites that they go directly to the message boards before looking at anything else on the site.

If I'm a newspaper sports editor, I create message boards for all my popular sports beats to try and steal some of the traffic away instead of just allowing readers to "comment'' on stories. A lot of it will be mind-numbing stuff, but if traffic is good enough, advertisers will notice.

I also wonder as more and more newspapers cut resources and many of these recruiting sites become more prominent as a primary source of "news'' for sports fans, will they be exposed to the point that other legitimate news operations mixed with some of the popular elements of these fan sites can pop up and thrive?

We can only hope.

 

I've argued this many times. You just need someone to moderate the page. It's very doable.

It's at least worth a try.

 

Hi everyone. First time poster, long time reader.
As a current Virginia Tech student, the praise that techsideline.com is getting from jemaz for its "reporting" is pretty funny.

First off, they don't even have a press pass.

I read the message board fairly frequently myself (I don't post) to keep in touch with what people want to read about, but they don't break news. They do recruiting articles where some high school kid says, "Yeah, I had a good time during my visit, but I still don't know where I want to go to yet." Groundbreaking. The worst part - people pay $5 a month to read their crap.

Their "news" comes from a daily news link that basically serves as an RSS feeder from The Roanoke Times, Richmond Times, Washington Post and the Virginian-Pilot. Posters will put a link to an article or blog post and then discuss it on the message board. When anything with even a hint of negativity gets published by one of the Virginia papers, they rip the writers unmercifully.

Darryl Slater at the Richmond Times wrote a blog entry last season about our third string running back bitching about playing time. Slater published the interview verbatim from his tape and the outrage went towards him instead of the running back. Posters claimed they were canceling their subscriptions and that they would never read his stuff again. Meanwhile, they're reading biased junk from the guys who write for the site and eating up every word.

On the last day of classes, The Collegiate Times (VT student newspaper) published a story about potential NCAA violations on Tyrod Taylor, Kam Chancellor and other players. The violations were minor, but it was still a story, so we went with it.

The fan reaction was typical and even a bit overboard. Fans on the message board demanded why we would do such a thing to the football team and ripped the writer (good thing he's graduating) for days. The best part was that fans heard about the news from people in Blacksburg who read the print edition, but anyone outside of Blacksburg couldn't read the article because the website got hacked in the morning (didn't go down due to traffic) and was down for almost two days. So, there were literally hundreds of posters freaking out and ripping our writer without even reading the article.

To me, I think that situation really illustrates the message board poster mentality and the complete and total lack of desire for an objective viewpoint. Unfortunately from a monetary standpoint, these are the people who are willing to pay decent money for information, but only as long as it's what they want to hear.

Sorry for the rant, but the TSL stuff is a huge pet peeve of mine. I've also just pretty much outed myself, but I don't care.

 

jgc:

I'm glad you posted. A few things:

1. You are making my point, which is that part of the problem -- a big part of the problem -- is that newspapers simply are no longer needed for anyone looking for coverage of a particular team or school These niche websites -- which can be started by anyone -- fill the role very well.

2. You clearly are young since you said you are a student, but pre-TSL (HokieCentral), it was like pulling teeth to get information about Virginia Tech athletics since we were not in the ACC and the Roanoke Times was far, far more interested in the ACC (especially pre-Michael Vick) than in VT. Hell, I could read more about Duke in the Roanoke paper than about Tech.

3. As a result, newspapers need to be more responsive to what readers want (which they mostly are not) or those readers will go elsewhere (which is happening). I understand there are other reasons, but this is a big one.

4. TSL does not need a press pass, since not much comes of the press pass anyway. But, as I said (and as Scott Carter noted) I go to the message boards first, which are full of information (much of it very accurate). In fact, I cannot remember the last time I did not find out something first on the message board rather than in the mainstream media. If I check out the front page, it is as a result of reading comments on the message board about an article.

5. The reporting on TSL is remarkably good, especially considering it was established by an engineer. There is far more analyisis and in-depth stuff than I find in the mainstream media. This is especially true on athletic finances and regarding the ACC expansion a few years back.

6. The Slater stuff you mentioned was a cheap shot and more typing at random than reporting. It was a young guy upset not to be in the lineup. That is not a shock and not really news.

7. I once was sports editor of the Collegiate Times. We were not very good then, and it is not very good now. The story to which you refer is exhibit b in the point I am making. As it turns out, there apparently was no "violation", and if there was it was so ticky tack that it won't matter. But that is my love  of Virginia Tech speaking. When it comes to the Hokies, I am just not interested in great investigative journalism over stuff that is not worth it. I  am interested in insight, analysis of the on-field stuff and future prospects and in entertainment. The mainstream press has never provided that in regard to Virginia Tech, thus the incredible popularity of TSL (where you can find lots of negative stuff, too, by the way). It is much, much better than you indicate here.

8. There was a need and a market demand and TSL filled it. Newspapers have not, and what they have tried has been far too little too late.

 

Clearly, if many people seek out message board-level journalism, then the days of general-interest sports sections serving readers and providing mid-level employment are numbered. I must say I had little sense that any coverage that doesn't boost a program is loathed by fans of that program. All publicity is good publicity doesn't apply here.

 

Jemaz,

What you're saying is right, in a sense. But the sad, unfortunate, as yet unrealized reality (for society) is that it is also garbage.

To wit:

1. What these niche Web sites provide is not coverage. It is, largely, PR, propaganda, and, as jgc said in his excellent first post, "crap" and "biased junk." Most readers don't recognize that, even though it hits them in the head, and they read it, every day.

2. To use Michael Vick as an example: Would you call writings about all his football exploits -- only -- on a Virginia Tech site real "coverage" if there was none about his "exploits" in the dog-fighting ring and his ensuing legal troubles? This is what newspapers do, and to do, or want otherwise is pure Pollyanna pandering.

3. Newspapers are responsive what readers supposedly want. That's why, where I am, all things regarding the popular pro basketball team are always at the top of a main Web page, always referenced in sky-boxes, and always linked, blogged on and given plenty of play. It is almost to the point of saturation, and to say otherwise, is ridiculous. Are you really meaning that, if you live in Los Angeles, for example, you only want to hear about Kobe Bryant's 81 points, and not anything else about him. It is possible for readers to say what they "want," without really realizing what else they really want, but take for granted because they will read that, too, if it is offered to them.

Also, readers, by and large, are not "going elsewhere" because of reporters' reporting or writing, or even because of their new paper's possible editorial leanings. They are doing it because the internet is everywhere and pervasive, because they are on computers, anyway, and most of the content is free, or nearly free.

4. The reason you find things first on a message board, before it is in the mainstream media, is because the mainstream media still, even now, has some standards, and standard operating procedures, and some reporters trying to do due diligence and make sure that the information is actually accurate before putting it out there.

Message boards can be good starting points, good places to see rumors, get ideas, and get some information, or think of ways to build on initial stories. But, as much as we would all like to be first, any reporter or newspaper worth their salt really, first and foremost, would rather be right than first. It is the first rule of journalism, and a matter of principle for most real journalists. What team sites and message boards offer is not necessarily journalism.

5. If you find less analysis and in-depth stuff on a team Web site than you do in mainstream media outlets, then you must not look very hard, or know what qualifies as analysis or enterprise -- although there is definitely less of both in today's industry, thanks to all the cutbacks in resources and staffing, and in the time available to that cut-back staff. My point, though, is that it doesn't sound like you look at, read or follow mainstream media outlets very much, anyway, and that makes me question what you've posted.

6. You can make an excuse not to report anything, if you want to, or if you find something too negative, or "not really news." But if you really are so interested in a team, you would still want to know almost everything about it, including what an upset young player might have to say about not getting into the lineup. Wouldn't you? Or else, maybe you're not as much of a fan or as interested in the team as you claim.

7. Again, if you are a real fan of a team, wouldn't you want to know everything about it? And, if you are reporting on a team, particularly as a newspaper or Web site beat writer, you are, or should be, interested in any "violation." It's your team, your beat, your job, and that makes everything "worth it" if you're to do the job right. The fact that something may be minor, or "ticky-tack" makes no difference if it is your job to chronicle such things. If so, you do it to whatever extent the incident indicates.

8. Team sites have not filled a void -- a real need or a market that newspapers, in the past, have not filled. What they have filled is a niche part of what newspapers have done, but they do it without bothering with any of the rest of what newspapers also have provided, thus allowing readers to be blissfully unaware of, uncaring about, or forgiving of, any news that is "negative," or less-than-happy from the team's viewpoint. Or so the school/team hopes.

 

WriteThinking:

Good post and good points -- if only it were accurate. What you have written is how it ought to be, but isn't. And my point is that because it isn't, readers go elsewhere.

I check out Arizona Central regularly (I also subscribe to the Republic), but still I go to the Arizona State message boards to get the inside story.

I noted earlier that I have a great interest in high school sports. Many, many others do, too. Yet the Republic only skims high school sports, at best. There are niche websites that have robbed the Republic of much readership and cost them subscribers. It does not have to be that way. I read more in the Republic about the Phoenix Mercury and other marginal professional teams, which (despite any survey you can show me) I just don't believe makes the newspaper more popular or a must read.

I worked for newspapers for more than a decade; I want them to survive, but they must change if that is to be the case because there are alternatives like never before.

The description of these niche websites as PR machines is important here, where that is viewed as a bad thing. My contention is that newspapers could take a more PR oriented approach and actually connect better with readers. What could it hurt because the approach now clearly is not working. Your description of these sites simply is wrong in my view. As I said, there is a lot of stuff that is not very good, but what is good is outstanding, informative and enlightening. There are lots of good writers and thinkers who do not work for newspapers who contribute to these sites and make them "must-reads." Sometimes -- often -- the reporting on these sites is far better than what is found in the mainstream press. That is absolutely the case with TSL, even without the treasured press pass.

By the way, I am hoping to see Michael Vick get a second chance and then I would like to see it reported wtih the same fervor as the other stuff.

 

Several good posts since I last commented here, and rather than try to go back-and-forth on each point of the debate, here are some steps I believe newspapers can take in terms of their sports coverage of professional/college teams to give them more of a chance on the Internet.

I'm a newspaperman at heart, but I also love the Internet and have learned more about the culture of these college websites in the past few months than I ever cared to when I was in newspapers. When I covered pro sports, these type of websites didn't have nearly the impact among the fan base. However, with what's happening on beats like the Dodgers recently, seems like professional team fan websites could be the next huge growth market. Why don't newspaper websites try and lead the way instead of giving away that territory to anybody with a computer? Newspaper sites already have large audiences.

Anyway, here goes a few thoughts:

1. A no-brainer. Start charging for your content of the high-profile, high-interest teams you cover. If these college fan websites have shown us nothing else, they have proven that sports fans will pay for content on the Internet. Some of these sites have 10,000 to 15,000 subscribers paying $10 a month. That adds up pretty fast, plus that doesn't even take account any advertising revenue.

2. Going a step further, I think newspapers would be smart to create their own sports-branding on the web. Still abide by the guidelines and ethics of the newspaper's journalistic approach, but make sports its own business entity and market it that way. Subscribers of its sports coverage would still have access to news and other offerings on the paper's website, but let sports lead the way in terms of making the Internet enterprise worthwhile.

Let's face it, newspapers are dying in print and simply existing on the web right now. At some point, they are going to need to "thrive" at one or the other or face total extinction.

3. Also, instead of one beat writer, you've got to think of having a lead beat writer, maybe a college kid who goes to class with the players as a part-time beat writer, a couple of his/her buddies moderate the message boards, a photographer/videographer and a couple of interns to help out with whatever you need. You'd have to start small, but in time, you've got to think big because these team sites that are truly big on the web have several people contributing, not just one beat writer like most newspapers devote to a sports beat these days.

4. Get fans of that particular team/school involved in some of the coverage you provide. This sounds a little crazy to some of us old-fashioned newspaper types, but letting fans contribute regular columns, or the addition of message boards or fan videos, etc., makes the newspaper's site suddenly more attractive and less of a hostile environment. Maintain a high quality of what is posted, but let others have a say.

However, this does not mean that your lead beat writer backs off in any way. He/She still chases news, does enterprise and in-depth analysis as usual, but give fans a forum other than the anonymous-happy message board a way to contribute a meaningful voice.

5. As for the print edition, just make it a best-of what you do on the web every day with some national stuff mixed in. The way I see the subscription plan working, and I'll use my former paper as an example, is something like this: USF fans pay x amount for USF coverage, same goes for FSU, UF, Rays, Bucs, Lightning. If you want more than your favorite team, you pay extra, which of course includes some type of one-fee-gets-all type service.

Anyway, none of this might actually work, but maybe a few are worth a try.

 

Scott:

For what it is worth, I think you are on the money and that what you have described might be the last best chance newspapers have not only to survive but to flourish (eventually) like never before. The internet and all who participate need to be embraced by people who know what they are doing and have the know-how to make it better (including the utilization of the amazing wealth of resources at hand but overlooked -- the audience and all that entails).

 

Hi Scott,

I think your point about hitting a saturation point is quite valid.

When I graduated university 20 years ago this week, newspapers and TV stations had almost exclusive domain over sports news. They relied primarily on competition from one another to keep them working. If we didn't report a story, it didn't happen as far as the vast majority of fans knew.

Today, there are just so many outlets out there trying to do the same job. A thousand websites, ranging from the teams and schools themselves, to newspapers, to broadcast companies, to talk radio.... all chasing the same bit of news. So, as you said, in an effort to come up with something different, you wind up texting some recruit about his dinner menu. (Not faulting you, of course. I'm simply illustrating that one has run out of news to break.)

Do we really need 40 different reporters in the press box at Doak Campbell Stadium to tell me what happened in the game? Or can we get by with 5 or 6, pooling resources and distributing copy and video accordingly? If I'm a sports editor of a mid-sized or small daily, an AP story --- or a content-share with another paper --- will do just fine, thank you.

Sure, it puts a lot of people out of jobs, but that's partly because there were simply too many people in the business in the first place.

So, I think to answer your question, one has to ask "Is there some constituency that is not being served by what is there now?" If you are just going to duplicate what everyone else is doing, all it does is decrease everyone's slice of the pie.