Papers' Devils writer from team website

I think this is awful, don't get me wrong. But how many sports sections of that size and smaller haven't run barely rewritten (or not) handouts, especially from colleges? I fail to see how this is worse, ethically. But I do think it looks bad and basically tells the readers we take whatever the team says as gospel and we're not going to give you anything more than you can get online from the league's website--in fact, we'll give you less than you can get at NHL.com and we'll charge you for it.

 

I totally agree. So long as it's a story, it's not likely that *most* reades even notice, let alone give a crap. Many don't know the difference between an opinion, a letter to the editor and a gamer anyway.

Also, not having read the Devils' writer's story, I don't think it's necessarily right to assume it's blatant homerism.

 

So will Asbury Park count on the Devils for stories about coaching searches or trade deadline stuff?

 

I guess I've run into a more intelligent bunch of "civilians" than most people have. I know people who aren't in the business who notice stuff like this and bitch about it.

Even if the readers don't give a crap, it's still our jobs to do so.

 

I don't agree with it, but there are lots of small papers that run releases that are written by school SIDs.

 

Wasn't there a thread on here a while back about how the MLB editor had done a great job making it an independent entity and had free reign to direct the coverage?

 

Maybe, but like Dooley said, they'll never tell you what's going on with the manager potentially getting canned, or break news on a trade before the team is ready to give it up.

Think an MLB.com writer would have broken a story like the Paxson/Del Negro confrontation? I don't.

They'll never criticize Bud.

They run the disclaimer that their stories aren't subject to review by MLB, but they don't have to because they never write anything that MLB would object to.

 

99 percent of baseball coverage - or any pro sport's coverage - at most dailies under 100K are gamers, player profiles from the local team of interest and stories about the Yankees' finances. If faced with some steep budget cuts, I think there are far worse things papers can do than use that stuff. As long as an editor reads it and doesn't think it's fishy, it's probably OK by the readers, too. It would seem efficient to save thousands on wire services (that do less and less all the time) and just buy the individual stories off the Tribune, NYT, McClatchy etc. services when the time for another Paxson/Del Nego situation arises.

 

Who's the "our" in "our jobs"? If you mean the job of sports writers, that's what the writer is. Yes, he's employed by the team, but he's still a sports journalist.

 

No, he isnt. He's a flack

 

Yep.

He has a different agenda. He's a PR person.

 

Stop that, damn it! Don't give any editors any more bright ideas, OK?