1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did any major web sites cover Giants-Patriots?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Stone Cane, Dec 30, 2007.

  1. Stone Cane

    Stone Cane Member

    OK, it's about 1 a.m. EST, and ESPN.com, sportsline.com, foxsports.com, si.com and sports.yahoo.com all have AP game stories up on their sites.

    I don't get this. Did none of them send a reporter? Aren't these sites supposed to be beyond covering such a historic game and moment with a sound but lifeless wire story? Are staff-generated gamers coming later? Game ended at 11:22 p.m. -- more than an hour and a half ago.

    What gives? We keep getting hit over the head that the internet is the future of sports journalism, but this is pretty lame.
     
  2. VJ

    VJ Member

    You didn't get the memo? Gamers are dead, they'll all have columns and sidebars up tomorrow morning I'm sure.
     
  3. accguy

    accguy Member

    The benefit of the internet is that writers don't have to write a gamer on deadline and miss parts of the game because their head is buried in their laptop.

    The goal is to provide perspective, to provide content, to work the locker room and to write something better than what you're going to read in the paper.

    That shit, however, takes time.

    Fast and ok is possible. Fast and great is extremely difficult. The websites want good to great. They don't care quite as much about fast. That's what AP is for.
     
  4. spartacus

    spartacus Member

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7617556
     
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    AP's job is to get its gamer out, and then get its "updates" out, and then get its optional out.

    The optional comes a couple of hours after the game.

    Our columnist's job is to watch the game, go to the locker room, come up with a perspective and then get us a column that provides fresh insight.

    That column typically comes 90 minutes to a couple of hours after the game.

    So I guess I'm saying I don't get the point. AP takes care of the nuts and bolts. We don't want our columnist doing that.
     
  6. LATimesman

    LATimesman Member

    Foxsports does indeed have its own gamer.

    But is it any better than the AP optional?

    Just asking.......
     
  7. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    We'd rather our guys didn't have to worry about play by play and focus on a key person or sequence or whatever, and yeah, between the AP gamer and all the furniture, we think the details are taken care of.
     
  8. lantaur

    lantaur Active Member

    I'm waiting for the day when web sites have both (from different writers). Until that point, it won't matter what web site you visit - a major one or a local paper's: they'll all have the same stuff.
     
  9. Jam3131

    Jam3131 Member

    This goes back to a previous point - do you really need two gamers? They will both tell you that "team A beat team B."

    Even sites that do have multiple writers at events should focus on different sidebars, features, etc. - Not the gamer.

    That's just my opinion though - I'd love to hear what others say.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page