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

[geddymurphy]

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.

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?

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.

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.)

 

[lcjjdnh]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Versatile]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

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

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

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.

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.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

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.

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.

heck, 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?

"When our correspondent, Campbell Robertson, was unable to get into the courtroom to hear the announcement of the sentences, he was forced to ask other reporters, who were in the courtroom, to fill him in on what the judge had said. Jordan Flaherty, who had taken notes of what the judge said, agreed to share them with Campbell, who then confirmed all of them with other people who had been in the courtroom. So we are very confident in what we printed in the newspaper. We were unaware that Mr. Flaherty might have been involved in public protests involving the killings and, if we had known, we would not have used him."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/04/local_left_wing_activist_becom.html

 

[Versatile]

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.

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.

It wasn't.

 

[YankeeFan]

It wasn't.

Piotr's? Of course it was.

Wait. Maybe your post is sarcasm too.

 

[Versatile]

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?"

 

[YankeeFan]

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?"

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

I guess I should have actually read his post.

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

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.

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.

It wasn't.

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

 

[lcjjdnh]

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.

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.

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

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.

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?