Lebatard question

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/12/2064096/new-journalism-is-degraded-by.html

Here goes: If someone had the Sanchez-17 year old girl story and sat on it, would Lebatard have called that person or media entity gutless for not running it?

 

I don't think Dan lebatard is ever going to be the one to criticize the whitewashing or soft-petaling of an athlete's image.

Also I doubt he or any, let's say old-world journalist would even think this was a story in the first place.

 

A journalism ethics lesson from DLB?

This guy has been a walking conflict of interest for more than a decade. He's a brilliant writer, one of the best out there, but this is a guy who Ricky Williams once called his best friend.

As far as sitting on the Sanchez story, I don't know. I don't really think any beat writer could have gotten that into the paper. I doubt many would have tried.

Daulerio reports it and then everybody follows and they're able to say, "Well, we didn't report it, but it's out there, so we can't ignore it."

 

Has DLB EVER called out any athlete plying his trade south of the Georgia/Florida border?

Just asking.

 

You know what? This week Sports Illustrated--mainstream as it gets--publishes its annual collection of 150+ mostly naked girls. Give the readers what they want. No one in sports media will lament the end of serious journalism.

 

Yeah, hand the swimsuit issue to a 15-year-old these days and he'll say, "Yeah, Brooklyn Decker is hot, but let me show you what I can find on a google images search."

 

The NY Post did more with the story than Deadspin, showing her name, pictures, etc. If the Post broke this story altogether, like it did with the sleazier tales of Paul Lo Duca, would LeBatard write that piece? Of course not. Also, no one reveres Kim K and Paris Hilton, like he posits. At least no one interested in sports.

 

Mizzou, have you ever had to follow a Deadspin/Daulerio story? It absolutely sucks. Not only does the whole world (or so it feels) gleefully prattle on about how "the MSM got beat on the story!!!11!!" But then you have to take 100 kinds of shit from the player, coach, media relations people, and fans about following up, full-well knowing that if someone had come to you in the first place with the story (which sometimes they do), you wouldn't have run with it. And, thus, player, coach, media relations people, and fans have something of a point.

The ultimate rock and a hard place situation. Nick Denton, meanwhile, just keeps counting his money.

 

This. The question that matters isn't whether people should or shouldn't want particular information, or even whether they should get it. Those ships have sailed.

The question that matters is: who cashes in?

 

That's a big part of it, but in this world and this society, the thought of a story being "out there" and nobody knowing is about as realistic as Bill Clinton convincing the masses that he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

It used to be that journalists were the ones who fed readers with a silver spoon, before social media existed and news was as fresh as a click of the mouse. Now the readers are in control, picking through the garbage and the mire to find what THEY want to read (and believe). Power of the people, so to speak.

 

I think news aggregation has simplified the Internet. The web was once considered the wild frontier as readers were free to choose from thousands and thousands of resources.
"Wired" had an piece a while back dispelling the notion that the Internet user picks and plucks from a wide variety of sites each day.
The evidence showed, the average Internet user -- not us who devour news and information -- visits an average of 5-6 websites each day.
Those links, if they are even links, are then posted to Facebook and Twitter.
That is how news is disseminated between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.