Sports Bloggers in the Press Box

Because some are actually doing game coverage, or want to expand in that direction, or otherwise want to be more than fanboy loosers and actually talk to players, front-office personnel, etc.

 

Excellent point. (Yes, that means it's what I was thinking )

If people are cheering in the press box, someone from the team's PR DEpartment (or college SID Office) should give them one warning.

If they come in team clothes, they should be advised that's not prper press box dress.

 

Hey folks ... new around here, but have lurked before.

This topic piqued my interest because I have kind of a unique perspective: I work for a big-city daily (features side, not sports) and run a fairly popular independent sports site that breaks its fair share of stories. The two have no affiliation.

With that said, I really have to laugh at the folks who think there's a difference between the old media and the new media (or "bloggers"). There's not, folks.

First, the notion that the old media has "higher standards" is comical. Clearly, there are blogs that have no standards. There are those that are just fan-boy sites. But there are also those that have much higher standards than the traditional media. There are those (mine among them) that certainly don't stoop to the levels of rumor peddling and look-at-me bombast that define much of sports writing in the mainstream media. There are also plenty of fan boys in the old media, too. Hellloooo Stuart Scott!

Plus, who's setting the so-called "standards" for old media? It's a completely unregulated industry, that answers to no one. At least things like the investment world have SROs like the NASD. The media has nothing (media certainly shouldn't answer to the government, but a national SRO would be nice).

There are virtually no standards these days in the "old" media and it's this lack of standards, I believe, has created demand for the independent media (or what some might call "bloggers"). Really. We live in an era when the most important newspaper in the country (NYT) doctored letters from a dead marine to propel a political agenda; an era where one of the country's biggest news broadcasters was busted for essentially the same thing, doctoring paperwork to spread an agenda.

And then people try to say the old media has higher standards. Give me a break. The public certainly doesn't buy it. Media generally have very little credibility in the eyes of the public.

You can draw the line between individual outlets, whether old media or new, saying that one is more credible than the other. But to paint it with such broad brushstrokes ("old is more credible than new") is simply indefensible.

When it comes to the issue of bloggers in the press box, to me it comes down to readership and credibility. My site certainly has more readers than the sports sections of many of the credentialed papers covering a given team, so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be given credentials. We don't need them, but if we wanted them for a particular reason, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Excellent points, baconboy. And welcome aboard.

 

If newspaper management types were smart, they would have their sports reporters blog from the game and immediately after thus cutting the legs out from under the bloggers.

I'm sure there are those among us who would say "but that's more work!" but I say bring it on. It's not like I'm not taking notes that will be of use for the story. Blog entries could be made from said notes.

We should be making our newspapers and newspapers' websites THE NO. 1 SOURCE FOR BOTH BLOG READERS AND NEWSPAPER READERS (i.e. blog during, and immediately after the game - brief, quoteless recaps or short opinionated pieces; and for the morning paper run feature-ish and reaction-type pieces about the game and its players, including quotes and stats).

Do both those things and "real blogs" (i.e. those of banged out by basement dwellers) become less relevant, other than to rant, rave and cheer in an unregulated fanboyish manner.

 

Ah, there's the rub.

 

The Boston Globe's Mike Reis does just that, Sue.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

We have a local guy playing for the Pats so it's a nice way to keep up on the day-to-day minutia.

 

Another old-media type who's missing the point by stereotyping blogs and bloggers.

The truth is that a lot of blogs (and alternative sports sites) are doing great, creative, inventive things that newspapers just simply miss out on - typically because they're too busy lashing out at the new media (as above) instead of learning what it is that they're doing well or have to offer.

It's like this: newspapers have a certain way of covering sports. Some of it's important and will not be replaced (post-game interviews, quotes, etc.) But as a result, newspapers have an incredibly entrenched mindset. Anything new and creative and different, typical newspaper editors just can't comprehend it. So the new ideas are being developed independently on the web, often by some incredibly creative people ... newspapers just grab on to them later.

Adding "blogs" to newspaper sites is utterly missing the point ... They're nice to have and some are quite good, but they're just grabbing on to a concept that's already in practice elswhere.

Bottom line: newspapers are NO LONGER the engine for creativity in media. In fact, it's virtually impossible for newspapers to compete with the innate creativity of thousands of people out in the general public. Readers turn to blogs and alternative sites typically because these mediums are entertaining and creative and offering a lot of material that readers just can't get from your daily paper.

Sooner or later old-media types will have to accept the fact that they don't own the news and don't monopolize creativity.

 

Thanks. Happy to be here ...

 

So are you saying someone with LEGIT media creds couldn't do a BETTER job (with more access) than the basement blogger?

 

Again, "basement blogger" shows your bias and misunderstanding of what's happening out there.

Sure, a good reporter with access CAN do a better job than a basement blogger.

But not all reporters are good, fair, entertaining or creative. There are plenty of ham & eggers out there with access. And not everything in the blogosphere is written by some "basement dweller."

But here's what's happening:

One one side are newspapers dutifully turning out the same types of sports stories they always have for 100 years, maybe now with a blog here and there.

On other side (I'll grant you mixed in with the basement dwelling fanboy hacks), are a bunch of talented, creative people offering fun new and often quite informative ways to look at sports.

Look, the public knows what it likes. And, clearly, there's a demand out there for information traditional newspapers are not providing. The public's not gobbling up alternative sports media because it sucks ... in most cases they're gobbling it up because it's different and better.

 

I think you are confusing "better" with "different." Nowhere in his post did he say "alternative bloggers" are better, just that they have found ways to do it a different way which for some reason the "old" media has not. A notebook blog is great, but it is not the kind of blog the newbie is talking about. But then, some people are so entrenched in their hatred (fear?) of new media that it doesn't matter anyway.