The Interplay Between Traditional & New Media In Today's Sports World
I am going to go a little meta inspired by my friend Dave over at Maize n Brew. If you have a chance, go over to Maize N Brew (the fine SBN blog covering Michigan Wolverines) and read up Dave’s detailed thoughts on the state of sports journalism in a blog post entitled, "The Death of the Print Media and the Birth of the New Blogosphere." The whole post is a must read which actually echoes a number of points we have made before when thinking out loud about bloggers, traditional media and what we do here on BN.
I do think Dave’s post is particularly poignant because it cautions folks about celebrating the death of "print media":
Bloggers have more at stake in the papers successful transformation than they think. Bloggers have mostly been on the outside of established journalism. We have lain in the woods taking pot shots at the media. From time to time we've even marched triumphantly down Main Street flaunting the fact that we are not the media when it screwed up. We are not the hacks in the print press. We are independent. We are a collaborative voice of the fan; the fan that has been left out in the cold too long by the press.Now the press as we know it is dying and our positions have changed. All of a sudden the information or commentary we relied upon for content is disappearing. In some cases we're gaining a new responsibility to provide information whereas before we simply commented on it. Bloggers will find they can no longer hurl stones at the print media; it's no longer there. We're not counter culture anymore. We're mainstream. Hell, some of us are the establishment now. But this is what many have fought for. Respect and relevance. It's closer than you think.
I couldn't agree with more. On BN time and time we have hit the local traditional media (and the national ones) for weak journalism. However, what I don't think I have ever advocated is doing away with the traditional media. I have to be honest. I sometimes get kind of tired by repetitive comments here on BN with constant attacks on Brian Dohn from the Daily News and how we need to ignore him.
Let me make something clear. I actually think Dohn is helpful. He is valuable to us in a sense that he is providing information from his UCLA beat every day. He is doing something I and rest of frontpagers have no interest in doing. When we do criticize him, it is about his opinions on UCLA athletics and I think that is fair game. More importantly what we want is for him and his colleagues covering UCLA beat via the traditional media to do a better job.
It was about three years ago Peter Bean from Burnt Orange Nation made a great point how both traditional media and new media can fit in with each other. He wrote:
In reality, sports journalism -is- changing, it's changing very, very rapidly, and those that understand how it's changing will survive, and thrive, and those that don't, will be obscure in what's quickly becoming a very, very saturated market. Mainstream media executives that understand this know that the fan's perspective is an ideal compliment to the "expert" or "insider" perspective. Dismissing one, or the other, is not only pointless, but counter-productive.The real revolution in sports media is underway, both among the smart folks that run the better mainstream media services, as well as the most poignant and thoughtful blogs here on the internet. The best news is that for the fans, the best is yet to come. This tension will resolve itself in some form, the result of which will be an ever-expanding universe of first rate places for fans to congregate and talk and read about sports.
We pretty much agreed with Peter that time and ended our observation back then with this:
We are going to be here. All of us are going to be here every day - offering our thoughts, views on anything related to UCLA and trying to share latest ongoing in Bruin sports. We are going to do this on the home page, in the diary section, and in the comment section. This place has become a lot more than just few posts from three of us who started this thing back in November of 2004. We are becoming a key part of the community representing the general conscience of the Bruin Nation. And the traditional media, and other traditional fan sites (of UCLA) will learn how to coexist and deal with the new phenomenon. If they don't they are going to lose out. Meanwhile, we are just going to have fun talking and writing about UCLA. That is really all.
Guess we are still around while number of print media outlets are having a rough time. However, that doesn’t mean we should be celebrating the demise of the print media.
As mentioned above, I believe the work beat writers like Brian Dohn does is indispensable. However, what we really need is for them to do their job better because most of them are downright lousy and often totally lazy at.
I know I have no desire to be a sports reporter. I think none of my colleagues on the front page have any desire to be sports reporters either (they can correct me if I am off on this … lol). None of us really have any interest in getting press credentials to UCLA's Morgan Center or athletic events. We do this on our spare time because we are addicted to UCLA sports. We might do an interview here and there because we are very interested in finding out something specific or want to learn more about a particular storyline because we have opportunities to explore them. However, we will never up sports reporting as a profession. At least none of us are really planning on it.
So we need our local beat reporters to provide good, solid info. Sure invaluable recruiting information from scout.com and rivals.com and other sites help but news from old fashioned news never hurts.
I just think it's interesting how bad and awful the media in Los Angeles truly is. They have no clue how to interact with new media (we have had more fruitful and substantive give and takes with national ones and outlets from other states in the background). I think it is a matter of the traditional media outlets figuring out how to productively engage with this community and others where fans talk about local teams. I think our members here and online communities in general would be more than happy to embrace the traditional media if they went back to doing their actual jobs and offer commentary/opinion based on reality and facts.
I mean I know I will be paying closer attention to the LAT if they start offering commentary like the ones we got from Jim Murray and offered unbiased and detailed journalism (often doing some actual investigative reporting) that would cover the local teams and programs in a substantive way. I know … it will probably not happen given the way the LAT and other papers are being managed today. However, if those guys figured out how to get back to doing their jobs , which is to provide accurate, fair and substantive reports, I am sure all of us here would be more than happy to pipe down the cynicism with which we view the traditional media today. Here is to hoping they can figure it out because I think everyone would be better off if both traditional media and new media found a way to supplement each others efforts.
GO BRUINS.
3 recs |
14 comments
Comments
Yep
It’s fun to needle the MSM guys, but they have a valuable role to play. I see those guys at practice and both think “that would be great!” and “damn, I would hate to have to bang out ’grafs” in that little shed every day."
You really hit the nail on the head on the key distinction. Dohn, for example, does a great job generally on his fact reporting. It’s the opinions that sometime miss the mark. There’s cross-over, but that’s the crux of it.
Another point, by the way, is that the prejudice on the other side of the equation is equally misplaced. Just as bloggers are wrong to wish the death of traditional media, so is traditional media wrong to be dismissive of blogs. The quicker both sides get that, the better.
by Menelaus on Apr 6, 2009 6:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bravo
Menelaus is right to point out the beneficial relationship between the tradition and new media. The print media and the blogosphere need each other more than each would like to admit. I would dare to say that BN would not exist if not for the work of the traditional media. Without the stories published in the MSM, how would we know what’s happening with the team? Who’s going to write the stories and give the opinions we so enjoy analyzing and dissecting here on BN?
Voicing my opinion and reading the views of other diehard Bruins’ fans is the reason why I enjoy reading BN and visit often. I also read the Times every day, but in reality I wouldn’t need to because every story about the Bruins is reference on BN, dissected and then analyzed. The presentation of facts with opinion is something I can’t get anywhere else.
The great thing about blogs is that anyone can be a part of it. When I was a sportswriter, I can’t tell you how many times people told me how lucky I was to be able to go to games for free. It was even better than that because I was getting paid to be there. (Not very much thus why I am no longer in the business). Whereas the traditional media is exclusive (and definitely acts like it), new media is inclusive. Just like Little League, everyone gets a chance to bat.
But what really irks me is when people here on this blog characterize the reporters as lazy. What are you basing this on? The front-pagers of the site are not out there covering the team, and according to Nestor have no interest in doing so, so then how do they know what it’s like to be a beat reporter? Or what it takes?
Being a journalist can be a thankless job and with the current economic situation faced by newspapers not a very lucrative one. The people still in the business are doing it because they love what they do. We should at least respect them for that.
richramus
by richramus on Apr 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re Doh!
I’m sure most of you know my view of Doh! by now. In the last week or two weeks or so, there have been quite a few links to Doh! stories in which he said “Mr. X told me such and such.” I have no problem at all with that. Likewise, I have no problem with his opinions, e.g., “I think so and so would be a great head football coach.” More often than not I disagreed with his opinions, and called him out because in my opinion his opinions were poorly thought out.
My gripe with Doh! is two-fold and is not limited to him. I despise the quotes and stories from anonymous sources. It would be easy for him to avoid that sort of stuff. Instead of saying “I know X Y and Z because someone close to the situation told me,” he could say “I predict that X Y and Z will happen,” or “in my opinion, X Y and Z will happen.” Case in point: Coach Walker going to UW. Doh! let it be known that he had it from the absolute highest level that Coach Walker’s going to UW was a done deal. Obviously it was not a done deal. So the anonymous sources were obviously wrong, or, as I believe to be the case, there never was an anonymous source in the first place. My evidence of that is when Doh! quotes an anonymous source saying something that only Coach Neuheisel and maybe Mrs. Neuheisel could possibly know, and we have to believe that Coach Neuheisel decided to confide in Doh!. The negative which has built up in my mind about Doh! over the past couple of years is simply not outweighed by the positive aspects of his fact reporting.
The other negative I have about Doh! and his similarly situated brethren is when he changes stories for convenience. If I recall correctly, Doh! quoted CTS as calling out a certain player by name, and then when he realized that this reflected negatively on CTS he changed his quote from our alleged coach. That’s dishonest, in my opinion.
In sum, Doh! the reporter who reports what he sees is fine. Doh! the reporter who names his sources is fine. Doh! the editorialist who gives his opinion is fine even if I disagree with his opinion. But Doh! the quoter (or as I believe the maker-upper) of anonymous sources and Doh! the changer of stories is something I can do without.
Now the next question: Is Doh! the reporter valuable enough as a source of actual facts to keep linking to and quoting even though (if you accept my take on his honesty) he sometimes fudges just a tad on those facts? I think not. This is a site on which I am a guest, though, and if the hosts want to keep that link intact, who am I to complain? If I open my own blog, I won’t quote Doh!. (Actually, I won’t quote anybody, because I don’t know how.)
OK, end of rantular diatribe. We return to your normal schedule.
by Fox 71 on Apr 6, 2009 9:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I see your point of view… but in regards to Dohn posting quotes from sources, it’s pretty well-known that if journalist name their sources, pretty soon NO ONE would talk to them. It’s then up to the journalist to decide whether the quote/info has merit, but for the most part I appreciate all the insight and gouge that Dohn provides. It, along with BN and all the other Bruin blogs, gives me a connection to UCLA and makes the slipups worth it…
by impaulv on Apr 6, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree, impaul
The only things I read from Doh! are those quoted by Nestor and the others. I don’t read his stuff directly. Of the work product I have seen lately, however, most appears to be his description to us of what he has seen. Lately when he tells us what he has heard, he names the person who said it. That’s fine.
One of today’s front page article has a Doh! report of what unnamed people have said about some Juco guy getting eligible. No one knows if that’s true, of course, and it’s a routine story. (Every athlete in college is concerned about getting and staying eligible.) It’s like driving down the road and finding a car lot where there is a “Sale-abration.” There is always a sale at a car lot.
I disagree about anonymous sources and controversial stories. As I recall, the stories about bu$h and Payo were monumentally controversial, but the Yahoo reporters who broke those stories named names and displayed evidence. Ditto for the recent stories about Coach Calhoun and the improper contacts with the UConn recruit. Naturally, if Doh! has a deadline, he may not have time to garner all the evidence that the guys on Yahoo did. What I perceive is that Doh! asks us to just trust him about the accuracy of the information from his sources, and their lack of bias and absence of any agenda. I have no reason to give Doh! that trust. From my perspective, he has in no way earned it.
Confession time. When I’m waiting in line at the grocery store, I look at the tabloids. For the same reason, I’ll skim over the reports from Doh!. I give as much credence to Doh!’s quotes from anonymous sources as I give the story about the Mexican guy who discovered that his sombrero was actually a UFO. (There was a picture and everything!)
by Fox 71 on Apr 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anonymous sources, and Dohn
Any information of a remotely controversial sort will have to come from anonymous sources. It’s the reporter’s job to establish his credibility regarding such information. Dohn’s credibility is pretty good. If you reject anonymous sourcing on principle, credibility doesn’t matter, of course. But you are rejecting most unofficial info, and that amounts to a lot for antsy, curious sports fans.
As for Dohn, I think his best attribute is his overall intellectual honesty. He does not play up storylines that he knows to be vapid or inane just because they sound dramatic and controversial. This is what almost all bad sportswriters do, including 100% of the LA Times staff. Nor does he go after asinine human-interest angles that ignore the realities of sport. In fact, he frequently lays the douche on such menstruations. So I, for one, give him the benefit of the doubt when he pisses me off otherwise.
He got a lot of crap here for what I thought was a very, very tame article following our loss to Nova. I didn’t get that all. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that we fulfilled expectations — his point in the piece — without calling it a success. When expectations are at a certain level, success means surpassing them. (Nobody would call Howland’s first 11-17 season a success, even though it certainly met expectations.)
by bluebland on Apr 7, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dohn
While I defended him above I don’t think he was all that intellectually honest when he was offering his opinions on UCLA football during the depressing days of Karl Dorrell. He doesn’t really get the culture of UCLA athletics and zeitgeist of UCLA community as a Rutger grad. I wish he was honest about that but he isn’t. Instead he uses his platform to lecture his readers about UCLA sports at times and that is where he totally misses the boat. He should just stick to beat reporting and work to get better at it. He is terrible when it comes to offering opinions.
by Nestor on Apr 7, 2009 4:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intellectual honesty doesn't mean intelligence
Or wisdom. By “intellectually honest” I refer to the fact that he doesn’t play up what he (and any minimally-informed person) knows to be bullshit, even if it would make easy copy.
That doesn’t mean his opinions are right, or that he gets the culture and zeitgeist of our community. Or that his preachy admonitions about unreasonable expectations aren’t annoying. It just means that he’s honest with what he really believes (however lousy those beliefs) and doesn’t peddle callow snark.
That alone puts him above so many other sportswriters in this town. Doesn’t say anything about the quality of his opinions, though.
by bluebland on Apr 7, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best practices...
If it’s an anonymous source, get a second; otherwise don’t report it.
by 10amla on Apr 6, 2009 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Doh! is the Tip of a Dangerous Iceberg
I’ve written far too much about Doh! and his use of unattributed sources (anyone who cares can search here to find my writings).
But, as a documentary film maker and writer who has had to deal with serious issues such as the CIA’s fighting secret wars in violation of the Constitution, the CIA and the Drug Lords during the Vietnam War, and the Iran/Contra connection — I can tell you that there are very few sports stories that demand the use of anonymous sources.
The use of “anonymous sources” is the haven of the lazy and/or the reporter who makes things up rather than searching for the truth.
Good media outlets limit the use of the practice on a “strict need” basis. It is to be the exception not the daily rule. Very few stories on the sports page demand anonymity. Often, the anonymous quote is the lazy way avoid having to find “primary evidence our sources”.
I find it interesting that the trashy tabloids often show more responsibility in finding and stating sources than some of our sports reporters; yes, they may do it defensively, out of fear of lawsuits, but I believe that many of them have a better track record for accuracy than Doh!.
And, good media outlets make the reporter find multiple sources for the same point and vet all of the stories that rely upon unattributed spokespeople. But, I doubt whether the sports editors do so.
The problem is not the media outlets — it is ours. They seek to make a profit. We seek truth.
I am troubled by a society that seems, more and more, to accept the idea that the extensive use of “anonymous sources” is acceptable. An honest and free media is critical to our Democracy and lazy and dishonest journalists are removing an important check and balance in our system.
To me, Doh! is an ant at a picnic. I can easily flick him away. What’s more troubling are the ants throughout the remainder of the media and the fact that we are accepting the invasion, without question — with many defending sloppy journalism — at a time when we need more, strong, dig in deep journalists, not on the sports page, but where it really matters. By diminishing our expectations in the sports section I fear that we are diminishing our expectations everywhere else — and that is why I keep writing about this topic.
sjh
PS. Seldom mentioned is another gripe I have with Doh!. When he was getting criticized, he censored his Blog. He was removing well thought out, substantive pieces — not flames, that disagreed with him. It’s hard to wrap one’s self in the First Amendment as a defense to sloppy journalism and at the same time hide behind the power of the delete button to avoid responding to a challenge as to one’s accuracy or opinions.
All this said, I do not think anyone should censor Doh!. I have no problem with him writing anywhere or being posted here. After all, I can just skip over his stuff.
Doh! has a right to write. And we have the concomitant right to criticize. What a wonderful place we live.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Apr 7, 2009 6:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Stuff Nestor
You hit the nail on the head.
by Maize n Brew Dave on Apr 7, 2009 8:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not just sports
Reading this reminds me of an article I read by David Simon, ex crime beat reporter for the Baltimore Sun and creator of the TV shows Homicide and The Wire.
The article is his response to the Baltimore police dept deciding not to identify a police officer who shot someone and the failure of the Baltimore Sun to hold them accountable.
Here’s a quote:
There is a lot of talk nowadays about what will replace the dinosaur that is the daily newspaper. So-called citizen journalists and bloggers and media pundits have lined up to tell us that newspapers are dying but that the news business will endure, that this moment is less tragic than it is transformational.
Well, sorry, but I didn’t trip over any blogger trying to find out McKissick’s identity and performance history. Nor were any citizen journalists at the City Council hearing in January when police officials inflated the nature and severity of the threats against officers. And there wasn’t anyone working sources in the police department to counterbalance all of the spin or omission.
Anyways, I don’t post here a lot (I usually don’t have a lot to share) I just figured while we are lamenting the state of the Sports reporting we might as well take into account the whole sad state of the news business and how valuable a good reporter is.
by littlebrother on Apr 7, 2009 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Forgot the link to the article!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022703591_pf.html
by littlebrother on Apr 7, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blame Rupert Murdoch
He thinks news should be entertainment. One idiot starts it, everyone else follows.
The practice of the anonymous source is not quite as annoying as Fox News’s habit of saying “some people think that blablabla”.
Good journalism is extremely useful. Bad journalism is downright dangerous.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Apr 7, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















