1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

L.A. Kings hire Rich Hammond

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Mr. X, Sep 23, 2009.

  1. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Well, we'll see about the pound of security the first time Rich has to drop an ounce of editorial hammer.
     
  2. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    Whether people in these jobs are given editorial freedom, or not, probably won't even end up being the issue here.

    The fact is, these people, themselves, are not going to want to come down hard, be aggressive or write/put out really tough, unflattering and hard stuff.

    Why should they do that? Eventually, you have to choose what side you're on.

    And even cross-over media people, for the sake of ease and expediency, eventually will, um, totally cross over. If they're working for the Kings or some other sports outfit, they are going to come down on the side of, um, whomever is employing them.

    Common sense, human nature, and, these days, especially, the smart thing to do.
     
  3. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    When I was unemployed last winter, I actually had an interview with the team I used to cover for a PR opening. They asked me how I'd feel about presenting the team-first PR image, yada yada, after years of being an unbiased reporter.

    I essentially said I'd do what I was paid to do. When I was a reporter, my job was X. In this, my job would be Y. One isn't better than the other, so there'd be no reason if I was being paid to do Y that I'd want to do X.

    In this case, I agree that Hammond is not going to come down as hard on the Kings or be as critical of the Kings as he would in a newspaper job. Even if the Kings don't expressly "censor" him, he's going to have the good sense to censor himself the same way that a newspaper writer wouldn't write "my paper sucks."

    Why would anyone presume that he's somehow compromising himself by censor himself? He's just doing a different job. A job that feeds him and his family. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that job, and nothing wrong with doing it the way the Kings want you to do it. They are the ones writing the checks.
     
  4. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I've never understand, really, the "cross over to the dark side" mentality. And the issue of editorial freedom is extremely subjective and a matter of degrees.

    I'm sure Rich will report whatever he can, and if he crosses the line, he'll find out. And that will be the job he gets paid to do. And he'll continue to take care of himself and his family and do respectable work, with the only problem some people seeing it as "selling out."

    And that's not his problem, frankly. It's not newspapers, but it's a job, and it's writing, and reporting, perhaps with limits.

    No big deal, and hardly an important matter of conscience some would paint it as.
     
  5. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    If you're a writer, you write for your audience and you write according to what is wanted by the folks who pay you. Not necessarily in that order.

    If it doesn't feel right to the individual, that's his or her call. But there's no selling out involved in earning an honest living. And we're kidding ourselves if we think independent media doesn't "sell out" in its own ways on various fronts.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page