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

No one? That's a bit much. There are plenty of reasonably intelligent people who can do decent game stories, and there are some people in the blogosphere who may be more qualified than the straight-out-of-college kids who turn up to cover college hoops.

But generally speaking? Sure. At this point, I find it a waste of time to deal with reporters who haven't been vetted somehow. That could be the traditional way -- editors knocking some sense into them, living in the community you cover, etc. Or it could be one of the many informal ways that people gain credibility in the blogosphere.

To answer YankeesFan's point -- sure, some people do a terrific job as an avocation. But most people can't afford the time or money to do that. We have mortgages, kids and so forth. So if sports media were to be dominated by people doing it as an avocation, we'd only have people who don't have to worry about mortgages and kids. And that would make a newsroom of the 1930s seem diverse by comparison.

I like getting multiple sources, absolutely. I want to read the local blogger's take AND the pro beat writer's take. If I had to go with just one, I'd choose the pro beat writer.

(Here ends the most wishy-washy both-sides post in SportsJournalists.com history.)

 

Revenues? Profits? Would the marginal benefit of adding the coverage you suggest actually exceed the cost? Kodak still brought in money on old film before it went bankrupt--didn't mean it made sense to increase investment in it once it became clear digital was the future.

 

In Kodak's world, there was no potential crossover between film and digital. Here, the content is the same. Any place wasting money on print redesigns or hiring top-flight designers doesn't get it. But the reporting can exist and succeed on the Internet. I don't have the answers, but let's hope someone does soon.

 

I worry about this much more than I worry about the coverage of my local sports team.

 

Honest question -- is this a serious/earnest sentiment? As somebody who wears both hats, I can take some time to refute this, but it feels like I might be misreading sarcasm.

 

Well, statistical analysis and scouting were two subjects mentioned. A beat writer can't necessarily be expected to be a whiz at it, nor can he be expected to know and be able to scout potential draft choices and minor leaguers.

But, with "crowd sourced" news, you can get all of that. There's no banner of credibility hung over any blogger/reporters head by the local newspaper, but folks learn who they can trust pretty quickly.

Amateurs can specialize in very specific area of interest, and become real experts.

What was Bill James when he started out? Or Nate Silver?

And, while they might not currently have access to the players, and the clubhouse, I'm not sure how important that is anymore.

Most quotes are "canned". So, in a "post newspaper world" PR folks would just provide a quote sheet. Or, they'd make players available to bloggers in some online forum. Or we'd just read the MLB.com site. Or, we'd just follow our favorite players Twitter feeds.

Hell, when the New York Times correspondent couldn't get into a New Orleans courtroom recently, they just had their reporter crib the notes from a local activist -- no problem. (And listed him as a contributor.) Who needs access?

 

It wasn't.

 

Piotr's? Of course it was.

Wait. Maybe your post is sarcasm too.

 

The question was, "Is this a serious/earnest statement?"

 

Fuck. You're right. I was thinking he asked if it was sarcasm.

I guess I should have actually read his post.

 

Thanks. I've actually had those lines (or close to them) thrown at me in the recent past.

 

Again, content may be the same. But why would it be bundled in the same way, once you remove the economies of scale of delivery?