Why do sportswriters resent blogs?

Yes, and she thinks she looks quite fetching. We don't have the heart to tell her the truth.

 

Is this the fetching Aunt Susan of whom you speak?

 

Going to college and all that might teach you how to write, but it does not give you exclusive rights to have thoughts on sports. Having a job which covers a team gives you better access, but it doesn't mean you are the only voice. In fact, there are plenty of terrible sportswriters. And I'm sure there are plenty of good bloggers. And vice-versa. Many journalists don't like bloggers because to them it is an attempt by the peasants to storm their ivory tower. A journalist really shouldn't care about some fan blogger - because that's all they are; a fan giving his or her skewed and likely biased opinion about some team. It's the ones which may be getting scoops or provide a different analysis which should get their attention.

 

it's a huge stretch to say that sports writers resent blogs.

i think they have a legitimate concern when they resent doing twice as much work as they used to for the same salary. those people might have a point although others would call them lazy. i think it's worth taking note when people have to do twice as much work for the same salary.

i was reading the new strib twins blogs (by lavelle e. neal III and joe christiansen) earlier last week and i forget who said what but on one, the writer scooped himself by posting quotes that were cut from a story not yet released online for the next day's paper. in another instance, the guy complained (not in a oh, poor me way...more of a statement than a complaint) that having covered spring training for a decade or so it takes an adjustment to get used to blogging several times a day.

 

There may be some envy, but the root of the problem is much more idealogical.
Reporters and columnists receive first-hand information. It is the essence of what journalists do. It is called "news-gathering."
"Couch-patato journalists," aka 90% of the bloggers, don't gather news. Bloggers take information, often second-hand, third and sometimes fourth, and then comment on it. This is not journalism or an informed opinion, it is spouting off. Simply, balderdash.
That is why the future of journalism relies on the frontend of the process. Uninformed opinions, these days, are free. And ultimately worth nothing.

 

Wow. Excellent. Couldn't say it better. Thank you.

 

Resent? No. However, they piss me off sometimes.

For instance, I was forced to run this "correction" today:

The reporter talked to Susie and asked if she could use stuff from the blog (which fit really nicely with the story) Suzie said sure, then ran off and changed some of the stuff in the entry to make herself seem more...reasoned. However, the reporter, writing to deadline, after all, cut and pasted the stuff immediately, prior to Suzie's adjustment.

Suzie calls this morning pissed that she has been misrepresented (although admitting that the material printed was on the blog prior to her edit). Since any reader that went to the blog would now see Susie's new words, it was felt that we should run a "clarification."

Herein lies one of the biggest problems with blogging--who holds bloggers accountable? A blogger can reinvent written history (or erase all evidence of it) with the click of a mouse. We can't. Our byline is what keeps us honest (and a blogger's byline is often BIGYANKSFAN69!, or something equally idiotic).

Do I resent bloggers? Nope.

Do I trust them? No way in hell.

 

deadspin? diawizofodds?

idiots with a keyboard?

are you serious?

 

The age in which newspapers had a near-monopoly over the dissemination of information is over. There's no turning the clock back. The sooner journalists stop bitching and whining about bloggers, the quicker they'll be able to adapt to changing times.

I think some of the people complaining about bloggers are simply angry that they're being held more accountable. You can't make a mistake or do lazy work without bloggers picking up on it. That might be irritating, but it is good for the profession in the long run if it is forcing us to do better work.

 

The only bloggers I have a problem with are the little independent amateur folks (basement bloggers) who are constantly whining that they should be treated like journalists (as if journalists are treated so well). Shut up and earn your respect by building yourself an audience.

 

This was typed with the advent of the telegraph. Then, the radio. Then, television. Then, cable television...
I suppose if you ignore those vehicles for disseminating news, it is a "near monopoly."

 

I disagree. At my team's most visited fan blog/message board/MSM story clearinghouse, the gist of their coverage is that any writer who effusively praises All-American boy quarterback is doing a great job. Anyone who writes that his draft stock is dropping or that he has to improve this facet or that facet of his game is a know-nothing idiot. They put the word journalist in quotes every single time. Anyone who praises Enemy U's recruiting is a know-nothing hack who has no integrity, because everybody knows that the coach of Enemy U must be cheating.

That's not holding journalists - sorry, "journalists" accountable - it's simply root, root, rooting for the home team, passed off as some sort of watchdog of sports writers everywhere.