Guidelines For Issuing Press Credentials To Bloggers

Providing link after link would be what I consider minimal research, akin to a middle-schooler writing a paper for class and venturing no farther than the school library. OK for a 12-year-old, but why should I consider it remotely in the same league as those who do primary research instead of merely compiling the work of others?

 

Save the condescending tone. It's not intimidating.

I see you've moved on from "bloggers don't care about anything but their own opinion" to "bloggers can't do research." Both are bogus, low-grade arguments.

My point was simple--if I see something worth linking, something my readers might find useful, I link it. Not because I'm trying to repurpose someone else's content, but because my readers appreciate the direction to good content. It's not all of what I do, but it's a part, and the purpose of all those links wasn't "research," it was to let my readers know where they might find some information on the Idaho Vandals, should they want it.

As far as it being "in the same league" as those who do primary research, I never said it was, nor am I all that concerned with what league you think my content is in.

 

I'm just calling you on your BS. Bloggers try to portray themselves as being on the same level as mainstream media, or in some cases better than the mainstream media, but they do not put as much time, effort and expense into it as we do. I was part of a discussion on a message board unrelated to journalism where some people actually said they consider political blogs more accurate than newspapers. My point to them was how could that be? Newspapers spend roughly 25 percent of the newsroom budget on quality control (editing) and blogs spend NOTHING on quality control. The people I was disagreeing with believed the blogs were more accurate because they told them what they wanted to hear. My point to them was that the blogs are worth exactly what you pay for them. Newspapers need to make clear to the public that when they utilize media outside the mainstream, they are settling for a vastly inferior product. Nothing personal, but why should we recognize what you do when you are trying to cut into the market without spending the money to do it right? When you start paying to travel with the teams you cover, then I'll consider you legit. Otherwise you are just ripping off our work.

 

This might be veering off-course a little, but I cannot help but wonder if blogs are the print version of The Daily Show. Jon Stewart drives me crazy when he gets all Holier-than-thou about how he's so popular because the CBS/NBC/ABC/FOXNews/CNNs of the world don't reach the audience properly, but there is no doubting his influence.

Now, Stewart has his faux correspondents, but generally he's grabbing news video off satellite feeds and buttressing it with sarcastic/funny commentary. It works.

There are three sports blogs I read: Deadspin, Can't Stop the Bleeding and The Big Lead. They're all doing what Stewart does: finding links and adding commentary. To be perfectly honest, I find them sharper than many of the columnists I read at many newspapers. Frank, there is no doubt you are correct about the lack of original reporting, but I think some people on this board and in business are quite frankly scared that the access will make themselves less relevant.

 

I'd think that all that time you're spending on message boards debating the Great Blog Question would be cutting into your time doing primary research, but that's your prerogative.

I'm not ripping off anyone's work--the bulk of what I post is opinion-based, and I acknowledge that. When I use information gleaned from another source, I credit it, mainstream or otherwise. I've specifically said throughout this thread that bloggers are not in a position to break news. Traditional media outlets are much better equipped for that particular purpose.

Further, if you expect us to spend money to do it right, then let us do it right--give those who want it the access necessary to "do it right." I know a lot of bloggers--we're really not a threat. Sure, there are loudmouths in the bunch who love to bash mainstream media, but the mainstream media has its own fair share of loudmouths. I can't be held responsible for everything written by every other sports blogger on the net. I'm just responsible for myself.

 

I think we have to take the Internet seriously as a competitor for both our print product and our Internet product. I think we have to educate the public that quality still costs money. I think daily newspapers have done that successfully in their markets when competing against shoppers, TV and radio. But because the Internet at this point is more written than visual, we need the public to understand what goes into producing our product opposed to what goes into theirs. I don't think we ought to play nice and welcome bloggers into the fold and assign them credibility. I think we need to fight them by denying their legitimacy. We are in a business -- let's act that way.

 

No problem with that rationale, Frank, but who decides access? Not the newspapers, but the teams. Now, should the newspapers lobby the teams to keep bloggers out?

If that's not your point, I apologize for my extrapolation. But newspapers trying to limit others' access is disgraceful.

 

No, we shouldn't try to block their access unless their inclusion in crowded press boxes impedes our jobs. But neither ought we help them or cooperate with them in any way. BTW, I have made the same argument about newspapers not helping ESPN.com by providing cheap labor when they want our experts to freelance for them, and I have argued against newspapers helping TV and radio in similar fashion. We are in an era when the competition can't be friendly anymore.

 

While I may write a crappy little blog read by very few people, I do have one and so I feel I should weigh in on this.

The primary difference between blogs and newspapers/television is their raison d'etre.

The newspaper was formed to provide readers with factual information. They hire individuals to check facts and compile statistics. Then send reporters to events, whether political or athletic, to describe what transpired.

Blogs are formed by individuals that have opinions and feel that their opinions are worthwhile enough for others to read. They have no moral compass from which they subscribe. The vast majority did not go to school to learn the proper techniques for acquiring information or how to put forward a straight newspiece devoid of opinion.

While there are definitely a few editorial columnists that enter the lockerrooms and press conferences, the vast majority of those that are there are straight journalists. They are in attendance to obtain information and write a story that relays that information.

A blogger is merely an opinion columnist that has a built in bias. Bloggers began writing about their team or their topic because they already buy into it. A blogger isn't going to start writing about something else because they aren't interested in it. T

Bloggers do not need credentials for what they do. It simply isn't necessary.

 

Vic, many thanks for our small corner of the blog world. You couldn't have sent us into the long weekend with a kinder note.

And Frank, as someone who was in the newspaper business for a few years, I can tell you that in the case of the Big Lead, this statement you made - "Bloggers try to portray themselves as being on the same level as mainstream media, or in some cases better than the mainstream media" - is 100% inaccurate. And again, we don't want the access.

And Frank, I'm curious - do you read sports blogs? Because they are not fan message boards.

ps - We'll be posting on Monday.

 

Frank, this is not a competition.
ESPN won a long time ago. Game, set, match.

One of our goals as a blog is to try our best to keep ESPN in check. When ESPN sweeps the Harold Reynolds story under the rug, we want to pull back that rug to see what's underneath. Ditto with the network calling the World Championship from Bristol, but pretending to be in onsite (Boston Sports blogger was all over that one). When Skip Bayless (or Scoop or Len P or Whitlock or Peter King or USA Today) are awful, or clearly writing with an agenda, it needs to be noted.

 

On this planet, it sure as hell is.