Guidelines For Issuing Press Credentials To Bloggers

Is his blog popular because it's a bunch of like minded 22 year olds shouting at each other as on any sports forum or because Gleeman has insight and information that no one else does? Probably both as Gleeman appears to have talent that was quantified by being picked up by traditional outlets. But any sports blog is heavy on the former which is why people "read" them.

The popularity with blogs goes back to the assumption by many fans that they could do what we do (and many probably could, this business isn't rocket science). With the internet, many fans can masquerade as journalists and launch successful blogs because the blogs not only allow themselves a chance to make public their thoughts but also any fan who wants to chime in. But of course, as someone who used spend a lot of time as a fan posting on various message boards and following my interests via mass communication, I can say that I know a lot more about the teams I cover, even infrequently, as I did when just watched at home. Any blogger who just gleans info from team sites or traditional media isn't really much more than an informed fan, who in some cases, can write well and would probably be a fine journalist if he or she worked for a media outlet.

And neither Gleeman nor myself has done much with our lives if all we write about is sports.

 

I've emailed back and forth a little with Eric McErlain, and I told him the biggest resistance to credentialing bloggers would not come from the teams, but from other reporters. Thanks for proving me right!

I would say the most legitimate point about expanding the credential list has come from Luggie, what with her concerns about managing traffic and access. But that's a problem no matter whether you're allowing bloggers, the Podunk Gazette, or five extra reporters from the Washington Post. I would suspect that most bloggers, like a lot of small-audience media, would be shut out from major events or the playoffs because of the demand for space by larger media.

Also, there's a Catch-22 developing here. Bloggers are derided for not going out and reporting. But if they want access, they're derided for not being worthy of getting it. So exactly how are they supposed to report to your satisfaction if they're never given access?

It's a joke talking about what medium is "worthy" of being in the press box -- you've all seen some of the people in there NOW, right? Shit, if we passed some sort of pure-journalists, non-fanboy, respectable-audience test, they could shut down a lot of college football press boxes and make luxury suites out of them. The reason teams let us in for free is not because we're wonderful journalists, but because we're giving them free publicity for their BUSINESSES.

The thing is, I doubt press boxes are going to be overrun with bloggers. There aren't enough of them who have built up the audience in numbers or in niches that the teams want.

However, I wonder how many writers are worried that if bloggers get access, the newspapers can't complain about them anymore, can't accuse them of doing nothing but linking to their stuff, can't say the whole medium has no legitimacy. And thus, when push does come to shove, Aaron Gleeman gets in over a small Minnesota paper.

 

Bob ... good point on who's already in press boxes now. I had to put my iPod on full blast last night to get anything accomplished at halftime of the game I was covering because there were so many loud, random people who had no business in a press box convening in there and acting like it was a party.

Jeez, people still have to work, ya know.

 

Bob, Great points about the Catch-22 and the press box.

Thanks for reading my rants.

Lugz

 

Stupid,

I don't think it's about blogs 'bearing more weight' than papers/magazines/ESPN.

It's just an additional (and quicker) source for analysis/insight.

Ben Wallace signs with the Pistons at 2 p.m. If you're a Pistons blogger, you can post up your own input on the deal within an hour or two. You follow the team, watch 50% of the games, and all the numbers/salary cap info/ is there on the net. Why shouldn't be you able to put an informed analysis? (Assuming, of course, you're not a blind follower of the team, and every deal is a 'good one' because you 'trust in the coach/gm').

ESPN <s>talkes</s> talks about the deal on the 4 pm show, Jim Rome, ATH, and PTI. Then, it leads the 6 pm sportscenter. By 7 pm - probably earlier, Chad Ford and Chris Sheridan also have their detailed analysis. ESPNews is running it on a loop. If you bother click on over to Sports Illustrated, you will find some kind of analysis there. Or True Hoop. Or Basketball Jones. Or Inside Hoops.

By 9 pm, this is old news.

The paper comes out the next day with ... what, exactly?

 

You are watching the games through the eyes of another medium. Your perspective is governed by what the cameras show you -- on-site reporters have the capability of noticing things that the camera hasn't caught because they are watching through their own eyes, not someone else's. Fans who watched the game see exactly what the blogger saw on his TV, but did not necessarily see everything that people on press row saw. Now, tell me again who is not offering anything new? Newspapers do their own work, bloggers who aren't on-site are mere parasites feeding off the work of others.

 

And when bloggers break news?

 

Many bloggers are on-site. It is possible to get into a stadium without a press pass. You simply buy a ticket. I do it all the time.

To discount those who aren't on-site with such a sweeping generalization is ridiculous. Sure, you might get a better perspective from the confines of a press box than someone watching the game at home, but that doesn't change the fact that there is relevant, entertaining opinion and analysis being posted on blogs every day. (Not a ton of news, but in my opinion, that's not necessarily what blogs are best-positioned to provide.)

I like papers. I really do--always have. We have two daily subscriptions to papers in my household. But I've been able to supplement the coverage that I get from those papers (and their shrinking sports sections) with on-line coverage and, yes, blogs.

Personally, I'm thankful to have the options.

 

Good post, BG.

 

But then you don't have access to the locker room. Oftentimes reporters have an uninformed idea in their head that is shot down when they talk to those most intimately involved, and the honest ones then go in a different direction. One of the most knowledgeable pro football writers I know told me that he's good because he has the humility to let himself be educated by the best football men in the game. That's something we don't see from bloggers, who believe their OPINION is all that matters.

 

Why the need for blanket generalizations? Maybe there are some bloggers who believe that THEIR opinion is the only thing matters, but there are plenty of others who link out to other blogs, mainstream media pieces, etc. Hell, I wrote a preview of a college football game today that included 21 links to outside sources--a mix of blogs and newspapers--specifically BECAUSE I don't believe that my opinion is all that matters.

Also, I pretty plainly exempted "news" from my comment, because, as I stated, blogs generally aren't well-positioned to provide news. I'm aware that we aren't in the locker rooms and that we don't have access to players and coaches. Again, that doesn't mean that there isn't opinion and analysis worth reading being posted on blogs every day--and I say that not just as a blogger, but as a consumer of media.

 

Right. That's the point of this exercise -- how to arrange access for bloggers. I don't buy the generalization that all bloggers believe only their opinion matters -- it's not just BG who provides link after link (you might call them parasites, but to me it's sign someone's trying to do some research). There are bloggers who would gladly take the access -- for reporting purposes -- if granted. You can't dismiss all bloggers as couch-bound hacks and then, when they respectfully ask for access, issue a blanket "no."