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!

Online vs. Print

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by JayFarrar, Oct 10, 2006.

  1. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    So I was in Memphis-town a while back and Scary Gary (I found your old ID, you were all dressed up like the Cure) was on the radio, as usual.
    Scary Gary being what I call Gary Parrish, the former Commercial-Appeal sportswriter, who is now a columnist for CBS Sportsline or maybe it is Yahoo, anyway he brought up something that I found particularly insightful.
    Scary Gary was talking about the difference between working for the CA and working for the Web. He had done a long takeout online on Kelvin Sampson, maybe, and he was disappointed that he didn't get that much feedback. But one of the regular columnists had written about 10 inches and had gotten feedback from thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
    And Scary Gary's point being that when you write for online you have to be much more provocative. Much more in your face because people have the power to click somewhere else if they don't like what they are reading. Yet, when working for print, they really don't have that option. If they want to read the paper, they have to read the one in front of them. It isn't like the print reader has 400 different outlets to choose from, all a mouse click away.
    So I was thinking about this as I was clicking around on the different threads about Doyle and Freeman. And it makes sense, to a degree, to take the big stand and go provocative for an online piece rather than trying to write a piece of analysis or commentary that doesn't go for name-calling.
    So what I'm really trying to say is that I think Scary Gary nailed it.
    Anyone else?
    I was also wondering, how many people go out of their way to read an online-only columnist?
    I may click on a link that is posted on here, but that's about it.
    Crap, I just saw Mike Freeman's mugshot for the first time about 10 minutes ago.
  2. lantaur

    lantaur Active Member

    If you want feedback, then yeah, provocative, or whatever other word you want to use (controversial).

    But many columnists in print are like this anyway (Simers, Whitlock, etc.), so I don't think his point is valid.

    Besides, I'm not sure if Parrish's gig at SportsLine is to be a provocative columnist or more like a national beat guy, which would be a less controversial role. Dennis Dodd, Jason Stark, Jason Cole - these guys' jobs is not to be the guy who sets someone in flames every week, although I'm sure they are free to voice their opinions.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page