Sports Bloggers in the Press Box

Well folks ... see it your way.

All I know is this:

1) There are a lot of great blogs and websites out there doing a pretty cool job of reporting sports news and information. The good ones have large and growing audiences.

2) newspapers are getting their asses handed to them.

3) Meanwhile, you're worried about protecing your precious turf in the press box, as fewer and fewer people read the stories coming out of those press boxes.

I'd say get with the program.

 

OK, so we are so into counting and making lists...

1.) There are a lot of creative and fun personal home pages, newsletters and fan boy web sites as well -- and they shouldn't be credentialed either.

2.) This is an opinion, mostly uninformed and one that comes accross like a fan boy who is upset because he couldn't get his crusty hands on a credential and thus couldn't go jock sniff as a means of "reporting"

3.) No, I am worried about doing my job, which I can't when a bunch of creative fan boy geniuses want to take up space and waste interview and access time with their brand of idiocy.

Further, I would conted that the web site of any local newspaper is still the leading authority on any local team and that the amount of people who read said articles still outnumbers the people who read "blogs" looking for info about the team by about 10 to 1 -- and that's being generous?

And how do I know this, because I know how many subsribers and the amount of daily traffic of both the scout and the rivals site of the team that I cover and combined it equals roughly about the number of newspapers we sell in a very small neighborhood.....

 

You're really missing the point here ... it's not the consolidation of media that's hurting newspapers.

Quite the contrary. It's the increasingly fractured nature of media that's hurting them.

Newspapers were once the only form of mass communication, so they could dominate the advertising market and advertising could support more papers. If you wanted to get the word out about your product in 1875, there was only one way to do it.

Then along came radio ... and then TV ... and advertisers had more choices of where to spend their money. This drives down ad rates.

Then the web just blew the advertising model out of the water, because it instantly created thousand and thousands of new places where advertisers could spend their money. They can be more judicious with their ad dollars. I see it happen every day as we fight for dollars.

Newspapers are simply in no position to make certain demands of advertisers when advertisers can get the same bang for less money by carefully selecting other mediums in which to place their message.

Basically, it's simple economics: a flood of advertising real estate supply in the marketplace drove down the price of ads.

It was this phenomenon that has expedited consolidation.

I agree that web ads have not proven particularly effective, but only because the ad buyer on the web has much more control over the relationship. It took them a long time to know if a print ad campaign was working. On the web, they can pretty much tell right away ... or at least think they can.

But whether they're effective or not is not the point ... the point is that the web, just by its existence, has taken away ad dollars once spent solely on print.

 

Are you talking about yourself here? It's not clear.

 

No I am answering your list by list talking points and thus I am talking about whoever wrote the original list.....

 

Our most popular blog is about one of our big sports teams. For all the bluster around the edges about how blogging is more creative/drawing more eyeballs/blowing away the mainstream media, a huge majority of interested readers find the depth and consistent execution of newspaper-based Web coverage far more compelling than a non-affiliated blog.

 

And I would be willing to bet the most substantial news and information about the team is the links to the newspaper stories about the team.

 

Maybe you sell more papers, but that doesn't mean everyone who gets the paper will open to an given page, seeing your article and the ad next to it. Everyone who comes to a website is going to view the ad, and probably read the article. You don't go to a sports website accidently as you're trying to find the stock page. Well, unless you're completely lost.

 

No, but being as both sites link to all my stories, well, I'd be willing to bet that all of the readers also read my stories and I'm sure it is like that in just about every market in the country, thus, this idea that blogs are somehow taking over is, to quote Fenian Bastard, the height of dumbassery.

 

Baconboy, I want to thank you for all the input you have given here. I don't know if the original poster for this thread realizes it, but your knowledge and insight are clearly visible and add specific intellect to this discussion.

While I'm an old-boy media type, I can see the writing on the wall. Baconboy is right and newspaper is being severely hurt by the new media. It is time we get with the program or the program will be getting on without us.

There is one point I would like to make in favor of newspapers that I haven't really seen anyone discuss. There is a sense of "trust" that the general public does have with newspapers. While there have been arguments of specific incidents to say that the media is no longer trusted by the public, I do not believe that people trust bloggers over traditional media.

In fact, in my business, normally people will find out or hear a rumor and spread it around through blogs, message boards, etc. But I have often heard many say, "You have to read it in the paper to know if it's a fact. Guess we'll find out tomorrow when the paper comes out."

There is a certain liability that a newspaper has to publish facts, not rumors and speculation. Libel and slander generally keep newspapers in check. Fanboy bloggers pretty much can say and do what they want because they are not taken seriously. Newspapers are taken serioiusly.

For the most part, newspapers are held to higher standards and the stories they present are based on facts. People do trust them. That may be their one saving grace in this industry.

However, many people do not trust them in this new age. They are tired of them and see them as tired, trite and unwilling to change, almost as if a good-old boy system of the South.

And just as baconboy has pointed out, the landscape is changing. Knowing that makes it all the harder to live with but he's right.

 

Hey Huck,

Thanks for the kind words. As I said in my original post on this site (earlier in this thread), I have a foot in each world. I'm a staff writer at a big-city daily ... but I have a foot firmly planted in the "blog" world (more an alternative sports site than a blog, which is a specific type of web site and not like mine at all).

In any case, I see both sides. I fought it for years ... but technology evolves and the world moves on, whether you're on board or not. I've simply chosen to diversify in the hopes that I'll make out in the long run. I've discovered, in the process, a wealth of great talent out there in the blogosphere (and, yes, a bunch of idiot hacks, too). I think newspaper reporters can put up all the walls they want between themselves and those evil bloggers, but the barrier is clearly disappearing.

I did a survey on my own site a year or so ago that really opened my eyes. I asked if my site should be considered part of the "the media." The response was overwhelming in the affirmative ... and much to my surprise, I should add. If people choose to get information from you (whatever medium you choose to deliver the information) then you are part of the "the media." At the end of the day, the public determines if you're legitimate or not.

I'd look at it this way: 200 years ago there were scores of newspapers in every town. The good ones, the ones with credibility or clever marketing, survived. Those that had neither died. The web is no different: the good and credible sites will survive and prosper.

At the end of the day, though, there's NO difference between old newspapers and new websites ... whether we like it or not.

 

Once again, another strong and informed reply by bacon. For those of you hardheads on here, you should read his words carefully. He's informing you and helping you at the same time. All you have to do is think about what he's saying for a few minutes. If he's not right, then why are you on this website reading this thread? Shouldn't you have your head buried in a newspaper?