Hearst papers to use Bleacher Report stories

Quick question: Is "The Sporting Green" for the stories that appeared in the paper that morning, or for breaking news as well?

I don't like that it's between the AP and Chron stories -- originally produced and reported content -- with nothing but a small overline. There's little distinguishing it aesthetically on that page, except for the small logo few would recognize and the SEO-happy headlines. I wonder if the deal mandates that BR gets a certain positioning on pages.

Otherwise, I don't see much of a point of placing BR content that high, because it seems like the greatest advantage SFGate gets is a bigger share of the Google News/search traffic BR generates with headlines that foresake artistry for keyword overload.

Looking at it that way, this deal isn't awful. BR is going to get the traffic anyway because of it games the system, so if a paper can get a cut from BR repurposing its content, it helps get part of the horse back in the barn.

SFGate/Hearst just shouldn't try passing it off as journalism on its sites, or at least do as little as the contract mandates.

 

The Sporting Green queue under the BR is what was in that morning's paper. One other bothersome thing: If you click on a BR report on the site, it says "SFGate" on the top, as if it was produced by SFGate, which is largely the Chronicle. Gives it more legitimacy, but with zero connection to the Chronicle in actual fact.

I like the idea of the opposite side rail, to differentiate it. And I have no problem with fan-produced copy as long as it is clear it is not produced by the Chronicle, and as long as there is no plagiarism. (And accuracy would be nice, if not possible considering their platform.)

 

Thanks for the insight Susan. This is why I'm leery of the "new age" of journalism. Yes, plagarism slips by under the old school system, and as more and more copy editors get shown the door, more stuff is gonna slip by. But there is at least an attempt on checks and balances at the paper. I don't see that at BR.

As a regular sfgate.com reader, I find BR in the middle of the page, above staff-written stories, very disturbing. The lower, the better ... makes it easier to ignore.

 

I'm sure they are doing this to keep you on the SFGate site and not have you go somewhere else. I wouldn't be concerned about this, as there is prominent mention (twice) in the headline that it is from BR. I think most Internet users are savvy enough to see the difference here.

As a style freak, I would be concerned about the headline writing (which in some case appears to be different in the SFGate module than on the article). One which I saw had:
"Could Aaron Rowand be Replaced Andres Torres in 2010?"

Not only missing a word but "be" would be capped in this instance. I know, picky, but that stuff bugs me.

 

Thanks for the input, I appreciate you checking. I'd be OK with it if it were a little less obtrusive and a little more reliable.

 

They come real close to plagiarism, lift others' copy without attribution and offer the fan perspective that the masses crave.

How can anyone not agree that "The Bleacher Report community has a lot of respect for the journalists on TV and in our local newspapers. We feel that we bring something additional to the table."

 

I visited BR and looked around, and realized I'll never go back.

I've never seen such a conglomeration of nicely packaged shit in one place.

Then I found this:

They're satisfied now? With BR's "reporting?" Laughable.

 

We have a parttimer who works for them. He basically reads every story he can find on a subject (that isn't his beloved college basketball team) and then rewrites it for FanBoy.com. Yeah, that's journalism. Makes me sick. Then he boasts when some idiot Web site (ESPN.com, CBSSports.com) actually picks it up.

 

I know Bleacher Report is very diligent about which writers they share and expose to particular outlets. Meaning, they know a lot of the stuff that hits Google News is poorly written, but they rely upon the content from their best writers for certain partnerships. Hopefully that's the scenario with Hearst.

Truthfully, whether some of you know it or not, you may have accidentally read an article from a B/R writer on one of your bookmarked sites and weren't any wiser as to who arranged that opportunity for a budding sports columnist.

The problem here is that BR completely skips the step of beat reporter. Guys have to earn the right to get their opinions published as actual news, whereas newly registered members on BR are already in Peter King's favorite coffee house, typing away. And beyond that, comes the ethical argument: Why unleash articles with no attribution or credibility solely for the sake of registering more unique clicks for ad revenue?

But I will say that I think there's a little pompous dishonesty as to the true value of beat reporting versus BR's armchair journalism. Shouting, "We interview the players!" and "We sit in the postgame press conference!" as proof of traditional journalim's merits is borderline dishonest. I've covered basketball games with tenured writers who barely watched the damn game!

I remember sitting in the press box with one of the older guys, entitlement written all over his face rather than appreciation for the privilege of covering a pro sports game. He forgot journalism is a service to the reader who couldn't be there, or wanted more insight than the telecast provided.

He paid no mind, only looking up when prompted by the audience. He compiled his lead and stat graph from the play-by-play sheets at the end of every quarter. He asked no questions and casually chatted with the other older guys, enjoying the free food during halftime.

I'm not saying that's all of us across the industry. Hell, it's not even close to being me. But if it's unique to him, then it's already too much. This guy is regularly published in one of the biggest dailies and I am not. His coverage was in the early edition and mine barely made deadline for the late.

So while BleacherReport has a shitload of work to do (starting with compensating the few talented writers), let's not dole out journalistic purple hearts to the guys who forgot just how awesome it really is to have that kind of access.

 

Bob,

There are good writers and bad writers. Diligent writers and lazy writers.

And for a lot of guys the access at games may just be a small, small part of it. They may be working the phones, cultivating sources all the time.

Anyone can disgorge their opinion.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, Ace. Working in this field is all I've ever needed to know that there's a lot more work that goes into compiling and reporting an educated opinion versus keyboard bashing as a malcontent fan.

And I love how published, paid journalists band together as one (especially as I've been on this side of the fight for more than a year), but I can't -- in good conscience -- spew the most poisonous venom at BR for how their members get their news versus how I've witnessed paid writers report their news.

Basically, it's not fair to hate the individual, amateur writers when there's a publisher exploiting them with a smile.

There are definitely a lot of bones to pick with the boys in San Francisco. Quality control is at the forefront. That they benefit from incendiary articles irks me to no end. But the way they handle some of their business pains me more.

Not paying guys for work that appears on their site is one thing -- but arranging partnerships with well-known publications and encouraging talented writers to work on 800-word stories for the clips without even the smallest freelance compensation is criminal to this industry.

 

I don't blame someone for wanting to write. Even write for free if they think it will increase their exposure and maybe lead to something down the road.

I just don't like how some guys get a big head when all they do is post their often-inflammatory opinion, based on the work of others.

And that's the good ones. The bad ones are spreading lies, dumb rumors and plagiarizing.