Sporting News/AOL Fanhouse

To play off what Cigar is saying, sports journalism -- or let's say sports content, in order to encompass the web and TV -- has become more like sports opinion. ESPN has played a big role in that, obviously. Everything is a talking-head show with people spouting what they think, often without benefit of all the facts. And that's what average Joe sports fan consumes.

So Cigar is right ... fans aren't all that concerned with awards and high-quality stuff. They want to know what the writer thinks so they can react to it, and I think that has impacted the way "old-school" newspaper people write. There are several beat writers who cover teams that I follow whose gamers read a lot like columns. And I don't know if that's a bad thing, but I think it does play into an environment where our readers expect opinion.

 

The "awards" tangent is a waste of time. I'd hope this thread doesn't get sidetracked about them.

 

The plot thickens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffington-post-aol_b_819373.html

AOL has acquired Huffington Post. They discarded sports for (left-leaning) politics.

 

Here is the NYT story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html?hp

Arianna to be in charge of ALL editorial at AOL. Interesting that Huffington wants cash, not AOL stock. Probably a wise move on their end.

 

Obviously this deal was hammered out in a luxury suite at the Super Bowl. Obviously. (From AdAge)

"Arianna, I think, represents something very significant," Mr. Armstrong said in a call from Cowboys Stadium, where both he and Ms. Huffington were awaiting the start of Super Bowl XLV in a luxury suite, and where the final details of the deal were hammered out. "The future of the internet will be a lot more driven by females, and it's great to have an entrepreneur of Arianna's stature, which for AOL is very important -- we wanted Arianna's voice at AOL, and for her to help us creatively.

 

The Huffington Post is huge, but I don't think it's a threadjack to return briefly to the other part of the discussion, about whether people care if the work is good. And there's another thread on the Huffington Post.

I think there are levels. Some of the best things we've ever written at my place have been largely ignored by the message-boarders. There are actually two possible reasons: It was really good, but non-controversial, work -- who's going to go into a thread to argue about a story of personal tragedy and/or triumph, as an abstract example -- and people mostly weigh in on things that get them fired up and (mostly) pissed off, like "Ben Roethlisberger must be banned from the NFL forever because he (at least was) a dirtbag last offseason." So they read the triumph and tragedy, like it but don't say anything.

The other, more depressing, reason is that if it's a good narrative about something interesting but not a hot-button issue, or a touching story about that triumph and tragedy, a lot of our demographic doesn't care anymore. They maybe start reading, get bored easily and move on.

The disturbing bottom line, and something we must be wrestling with: If I publish a story saying Michael Vick is a douchebag, it's going to resonate far more with much of our demographic -- get read, reposted, tweeted, commented on -- than if I publish a really well-written story about Lou Gehrig and his fight against ALS.

Sad for many of us, but true.

 

I liked Fanhouse back in the day for the occasionally hysterical commentary from people like Miss G (Alana Nguyen, now of Yardbarker but probably a future business tycoon). It was a more clever Deadspin in many ways, and this was before Deadspin went down the tubes under Daulerio.

But I also liked Fanhouse when they expanded aggressively and brought experienced journalists in-house. They had a terrific mix of people who came from newspaper backgrounds and those who came from blog backgrounds. Maybe there was nothing as funny as Miss G, but other sites can bring wit if you really want to look for it. (Unfortunately, some Yahoo blogs under former Fanhouser Jamie Mottram have veered toward the junkier stuff.)

To answer Dave's question as best I can: Certainly, newspaper journalism has evolved over the years by necessity. Writers often are writing for an audience that has already seen the game, so going beyond the readily apparent is more important than ever.

That said, a lot of what "works" online is frankly crap. Photo gallery of the UFC Octagon Girls? Yeah, that'll "work." Snarky stuff written by people who'll never speak with an athlete to try to get his or her point of view? Yeah, that'll "work."

We can't be Luddites, of course, and we've seen good journalism online -- sometimes taking advantage of the medium with real-time commentary, creative databases or (less frequently) good graphics. But one Deadspin is more than enough.

 

First of all, TV does do journalism, and it has for years. Get over it, print folks. Secondly, the answer is NOT to "opinion everything up." God, please no. There's enough opinion. Yes, ESPN does lots of opinion. They also do lots of reporting. They also do quality features-- in print, online and on TV.

The problem with the traditional print side of things (I'm talking about newspapers and online ventures like Fanhouse) is... as Shaq would say... marketing. Or lack thereof.

You'll notice when ESPN does something great and quality like 30 for 30, somehow they get lots of people to watch. It's because they know how to promote. I recently saw an ad for the 30 for 30 DVD box set in US Weekly.

There's a TV term called 'off channel promotion'-- advertising your product outside of your own company. Did Fanhouse do that? As Mr. Cook posted up there, he had trouble finding a Fanhouse feature... meanwhile effin' Bleacher Report has mastered SEO. How about if the newspapers hired some SEO geniuses, marketing gurus, etc. ?

And while you're at it, stogy print people, learn about TV. Slapping down some overlong video clips from a reporter with an untrained voice and saying, "Hey look! Video!" ... will not get you hits. TV/video is a craft. Respect it.

Sometimes I think -- what if the LA Times had diversified into new platforms and started its own cable channel with skilled TV people to run it the way ... oh, just as an example ... the way The New York Yankees did? Y'all know that little billion dollar channel they have, right? What if the LA Times had diversified its platforms? Would there be a revenue problem? Would they have the money to continue to do journalism?

So, to sum up:

1) Lack of promotion and SEO
2) Lack of diversification into new platforms
3) So busy thumbing nose at TV, can't respect or learn from it

[/rant]

 

Yeah, people writing for nothing.

That's where we want to go.

Yes, sirree.

 

I haven't seen good marketing for many newspapers. Local TV stations owned by newspaper chains have better marketing strategies.

What's Patch's marketing plan? I've seen a few online ads, but Patch needs to buy cheap TV time.

 

Readers react to opinion, but they don't like to pay for it. Opinions are like assholes these days.

Someone said they don't want to pay for mainstream news. That's true to an extent, because there are so many other places to go. Hell, when my favorite NBA team plays on the West Coast, I go to ESPN.com without even thinking for the score rather than the local metro.

What will people pay for? Non-mainstream news. I'm thinking sites like Rivals.com, for example. I'm sure there are news equivalents.

 

I'll pay for convenience. I buy the Times, New Yorker, and a number of blogs on my Kindle - all of which I can get for free on web ( sans a few of New Yorker stories for subscription only) .

Format very reader friendly. Can just look through story summaries ( about 5 per page) If I want to read more I can open.

No clutter - just the stories.

Politico is like that also -