USC reporter, Rivals

Translator, please?

 

Especially this one, from what I hear.
From what I heard, this site was more interested in being a mouthpiece for the program and reporting positive news than reporting negative news.
When the reporter leaving this job reported negative news, his bosses weren't exactly pleased with him, and it showed.

 

Same thing on our beat. The Rivals guys are outstanding reporters, absolutely wired into the program, and do great columns/analysis, as well.

I worry about them more than any other newspaper, including the resident metros, and it isn't really close.

 

Rivals.com? A terrible company to work for. Look for them to fire you without a second glance, or for them to change your contract after you have already signed it.

You are writing to a captive audience, but if you aren't a fanboy looser your readers are going to HATE you. And you will hear it. Oh my yes, you will hear it.

However, the connections you can make on a beat like this could offset all these negatives. Get in, do some good work, get hated by your subscribers and get back out. Also, get used to lots and lots of recruiting coverage.

Does that help at all?

 

You're right about writing positive news. If said team loses out on a recruitment, loses a game, forget about reporting the facts. From what I've read, definitely more PR than newspaper reporting.

 

This site is not interested in negative news, but calling it a mouthpiece would be harsh. Also, this position does not involve recruiting coverage. They've got a guy who's all over that. If you live to be around sports and don't mind sacrificing a bit journalistically, this site may be for you. If you do mind, stay away.

If you have any questions about the site, I'm the guy you want to talk to. Feel free to PM.

However, there's already some strong local interest. So, if you're coming from far away, get your app in soon and make a damn good impression.

 

Based on every site I've seen or heard about associated with Rivals, these are team sites designed to blow sunshine up the rear end of the program, unless the program is so moribund and pathetic that the sites are forced, essentially, into neutrality.

They're not remotely objective, but they are a little fascinating. They all seem to have their own little byzantine set of rules and sacred cows. And the message boards I've seen…wow, people really haven't grown up yet.

 

Good luck finding a decent writer/non fan-boy with that kind of approach.
I suspect plenty of legit journalists will take your advice and stay away.

 

The thing is there are good newspaper people going to work for some of these sites. The way the newspaper business is heading our best bet might be to invade and do what we can to make the Web a place for solid journalism.

 

That's the thing - I'm on-board with the Web as the next frontier of newspaper journalism. But when someone connected or close to a job says it is a job where you "don't mind sacrificing a bit journalistically," it sends up a red flag.

 

What I'm wondering is what happens if we start going to these sites and do real journalism. Would they fire you or breaking big stories? The fanboy subscribers might throw a fit, but I bet they'd read it.

The problem, as I see it, is that the publishers and money people behind the sites usually are fanboy looosers too. Maybe some of us under-appreciated, under-paid newspaper scribes should get together, buy one of these sites and run it the right way.

 

depending on what school you cover for these sites, there gets to be a degree of wanting to break stories before a competing print entity. for example, a rivals site I once worked for usually prided itself on having a story before the other outlets covering the team.