Guidelines For Issuing Press Credentials To Bloggers

Let me elaborate. ESPN can be the "worldwide leader." But if they want readers in Nebraska, they can put a bureau in Lincoln. And every other freaking pro and college sports city. Their Web site is successful because newspapers have allowed ESPN to cover the nation on the cheap by letting our people write for it. We shouldn't do that.

 

Why?

Not derisive; honest question.

 

Because they have the most influence. Whether Frank wants to believe it not, ESPN sets the sports agenda in this country. Not to mention the fact that the writers are being paid more than any print writers in the profession. They're fair game - unlike some guy writing for the 10,000 daily shopper in Nebraska.

Have you guys been following the Len P vs. Pro Football Talk stuff?

Scroll around for it, but this site break news all the time without the access. For most NFL beat writers, this is a top 3 stop in the morning.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

 

My point is they wouldn't if we'd all stop helping them.

 

All right, not to turn this into a huge Web vs. print-jack ...

But these Web sites -- Yahoo! and CBS Sportsline and, yes, ESPN.com -- are also hiring their own writers. So I would beg to differ that these Web sites are "successful" because of newspapers allowing them to cover the nation on the cheap. They're successful because they spend money -- it's newspapers who are doing things on the cheap. ...

So on the business end of it, unless newspapers spend the money to compete ... there is no competition. ESPN is making a mockery of any so-called competition.

 

I don't mean why do we need to hold ESPN or Mariotti or Simers or Albom to account. I mean why do we need you to hold them to account?

A couple of pages ago you, or the other B-blogger, BG, mentioned that 13,000 page views a day was pretty impressive. In the quote above, you denigrate a 10K circ paper for having no clout, and for being too small to merit your oversight. How then does an entity of virtually the same size, a 13K page-view website, bring ESPN to heel? How does it presume to reform the inaccuracies or hidden "agendas" of the columnists I've just named?

And while you're busy with all this muckraking - who holds you to account?

Additionally, it's not particularly well thought of in here to relentlessly flog your own product under cover of discussing something else. That you and BG registered at the same time and have now dropped the names of the same 2 websites 5 times seems a little suspect. Right, profootballyak, no NFL beat writer at a dying 500K newspaper would start the day without it, etc. We get it.

 

Might want to work on that primary research a bit. I registered on April 14, 2005. Thebiglead registered on April 14, 2006.

Close, but yet--not so much.

Also, I've not dropped the names of any websites, much less the same 2 websites 5 times. But, whatever.

 

Then I stand corrected. Let me amend "registered" to read "appeared." And if nobody's dropping names this week, why all the sudden links to thebiglead and profootballblahblahblah?

The other questions remain unanswered.

 

I've appeared previously, just not frequently. I'm not in your biz, I'm just a blogger. So I don't chime in often. In this particular thread, I thought I had some perspective to add, so I dove in.

As for the sites you've referred to, your guess is as good as mine. All I'm sayin' is, I haven't been dropping names, and it seemed that you insinuated that I have. If I'm wrong about that, apologies. My bad.

 

The fault is all mine. I apologize for having tarred you with the same brush.

 

Don't sweat it. (I'm trying to come up with a witty reference to feathers, but it's getting kinda late.)

 

My, a lot of posts since my last one. I guess the point is that not all bloggers are the same and the best, like the best journalists at traditional media outlets, do their homework, offer insightful opinion and are entertaining.

However, my original points still hold that a lot of the appeal of blogs has to do with interactivity. It's not just the bloggers that people like, it's the ability to interact with them and have their own thoughts up on the Web for others to read.

My other point is that no matter how much anyone, a 21 year old or a 51 year old, follows a team, if he or she doesn't have the access that traditional media members do, their output is incomplete. Of course, simple access is not the path to quality reporting and I don't think anyone is saying that it is but I think that just because someone can write in an entertaining fashion and has a billion links to sites about the topic at hand means that a blog is providing more informative content than someone who does a credible job of reporting the action by going to games and having access to players and coaches.

The upshot is that sports writing isn't a terribly hard gig if you have a talent for telling a story, love what you do and are willing to work hard. There are writers and bloggers who don't match all three criteria and plenty of both who do. But ultimately the folks with the access are going to have the better story.