When Losers Write History: Why...media reporters get their own industry so wrong

One of the things I stress all the time, always, constantly is the need for newspapers to figure out what we do well (break news, tell stories and distill complicated situations) and to hammer that home as best we can. The people who want fluff pieces on the Internet are finding them entirely through social media and search engines. I'll get to social media in a second. But if you're a generalist publication, you need to hit search-engine optimization out of the park to capture the lazy, half-caring clicks.

But there's a whole swath of readers out there who care deeply about every given subject and find go-to places. Newspapers need to show their value in the areas they can prove to be go-to places. It's not generalist bullshit. In sports, the team websites and a small handful of major sports sites will handle that and get a ton of clicks because the generalist consumers think, "I want to know what happened in the Mets game. I'll go to [mets.com/yahoosports.com/espn.com/mlb.com] and find out." And that's great for them. But you need to build on your strengths to maintain a loyal group of readers, readers who view your product as something different and something important in following their team.

A great example: Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Why do you think Cardinals bloggers praise the hell out of him? Because he's on top of his game. He tells stories, breaks news and explains complicated situations as well as any beat writer out there. Pair him with Bernie Miklasz, and the Post-Dispatch has two essential Cardinals writers. I'm not a fan of what the section does in some of its other coverage, but those two are elite. They provide content that hard-core fans and generalist fans want to read, content that no one else is providing. They show their expertise, a big part of which is connections and story-telling, and don't overstep their boundaries.

Now, you provide that unique and important content to the hard-core fans, and they're going to give you free promotion. The people who care the most also share quite a bit via social media. Moreover, other people who care will click their links. There are three ways to get people to your story: 1) search-engine optimization, 2) people actively seek your material, 3) social media. Of course, either 1 or 2 begets 3. Moreover, you can build search-engine optimization into quality product and cover all your bases. That's what we need to be doing. It starts with great product that doesn't try to be what it is. We're never going to be the place to analyze Gerardo Concepcion's slider, but we can definitely be the one to explain why the Cubs landed on Concepcion, why they paid so much money, how they paid so much money and how quickly they think they can develop him.

In other words, RickStain is right about what fans want, but he's wrong in thinking newspaper coverage of baseball can't provide at least a chunk of that, if not the whole package. Perhaps we're always going to be fast food, but we should try to be Chipotle instead of McDonald's.

 

There's one bit of analysis Welch overlooks here. Many of the sources he mentions are either "official" or amateur.

Individually, many of those official and amateur sites are pretty good. I can't speak to mlb.com, but in several sports, the official sites churn out good, analytical game reports and a lot of stats you can't get elsewhere. And a lot of amateur bloggers are pretty good.

But would you really want the media to be dominated by official sites and amateur sites?

The amateur sites in particular are run by people who have the time and money to pursue "journalism" as an avocation rather than a vocation. And people think the "mainstream" media are elitist!

 

Alternate title: "In Which I Confirm Myself"

 

Or: "...Guy tucked away in a non-profit tells everyone to start living in the real world..."

 

Welch lived in the real world of newspaperdom for a long time. But perhaps he's been hanging around Ayn Rand disciples too long.

 

My question: Why is it necessary, or even preferred, that newspapers do this? Or, more specifically, that the people covering the Cardinals in such detail are somehow affiliated with the people covering the St. Louis City Council, Mizzou, etc. On the Internet, the economies of scale to bundling this information is greatly reduced, because delivery is costless.

 

So what? Do you think most of them don't have full time jobs in some other field?

People have all kinds of hobbies they spend hour on.

Couldn't you get better and more information from an army of part time enthusiasts vs. a couple of full time reporters working for newspapers?

 

It depends on what kind of info you're talking about.

 

Nope.

Those amateurs don't have journalists' training, ethics, skills, or experience. They never cut their teeth on high school sports. They never sat in an ethics lecture and heard about how stupid it is to take a bobblehead or a t-shirt.

There is no one - I repeat, NO ONE - among the bloggers and other amateurs who can do what a journalist does. They cannot analyze games unless they're in the clubhouse getting canned quotes. They cannot give an opinion on personnel moves unless they are at batting practice every single day.

And as Versatile said, newspaper journalists need to keep reminding people of this inherent specialness.

 

The reason is because the print product still makes money, albeit less now, that few local websites can bring in.

 

As true (and condescending) as some of this is, should we trust the hobbyist, the impassioned local gadfly, to always show up at the town council meeting? Or do we need to rely on the dull constancy of a paid correspondent?

There are some small guarantees of journalism worth keeping. One being regular attendance at the dreariest (and sometimes most important) meetings of our governments.

 

Speaking as a fan of professional sports teams, I really don't have much need for what those journalists do when I want coverage of my teams.

I've read the professional coverage, and I've read the amateur coverage that CANNOT do what they do, and I know which one I prefer.