Seattle Times baseball webcast

Read a few days back how the Minneapolis Star-Trib had started doing a news webcast. The Seattle Times has been running a daily, live baseball webcast throughout spring training on its Mariners blog. The host, beat writer Geoff Baker, takes hour-long questions from readers. If you scroll down the post, you'll see a replay of the live segment from earlier in the day.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mariners/2009/02/24/no_beltre_decision_today.html

The team's top draft pick and GM are even pulled on camera later on in the segment for quick Q and A's with fans. Not sure how many new readers this will get, but it sure is different as a concept. Baker had done this for more than two consecutive weeks before taking a break, but wrote that it would continue when he returns. Never thought we'd ever see beat writers doing live TV on their own blogs. Anyone know how he does this (alone or with a crew), or if he gets paid extra?

 

Obviously I've never watched him do one in person, but I wouldn't think he would have a crew with him. He's been doing videos for the blog for a while. He always does these road trip videos, when he just has a camera and films his trip to the airport, then his trip from the airport to his hotel, his view from the hotel, a tour of the ballpark, etc. Those are kind of interesting. So he definitely seems tech-savvy enough to do the Geoff Baker Live thing by himself, which I'm pretty sure he does. And I don't think any of them get paid extra for blogging, though I'm not sure. The obvious guess in this day and age would be no.

 

An hour a day just to field the questions, never mind prep time or whatever else is involved in getting the video onto the blog?

On top of regular baseball beat duties, including writing blog entries, too?

Newspaper editors must think life is nothing but a series of two-for-one coupons. Do they ever pay retail for anything?

 

Again, I have no facts to support that. It's just my guess that with the way things are, I don't see them paying him for something like that.

 

I just wonder what's the use if you can't sell ads to make it worthwhile.

If you go to http://www.ustream.tv/geoffjays and you click on the different videos, the top one has over 150,000 viewers. I don't see how that is possible.

 

Why wouldn't it be possible? Have you checked the stats on the myriad YouTube videos out there? I'd guess there's probably 1,000 videos on the site right now with that many viewers.

 

Justifiably and provably, even.

 

If you could get 150K views for a video, then the ad staff should be selling 15 to 30-second spots like crazy.

 

Not necessarily. At my last station, we had live games and other programs that were doing killer ratings-- with very few advertisers.

There are so many places to advertise these days-- and nobody's doing it.

 

This is why ink-stained-wretches need agents!
We all have the ability to do these 30- and 60-second reports that our electronic brethern do. It isn't that difficult. But we buy into the idea it is because everybody around us acts like we just re-invented the wheel when we step in front of a minicam and deliver the same quality.
We have to wake up. All of us have dictated a few paragraphs over the phone. Or ad-libbed on radio. TV/internet video is no different.
So show us the money.
Ever notice how your boss kind of doesn't know what to say when you basically do a better job on your website than the local TV people do with the same story on their 6 o'clock news?
It's because we might say, "Hey, Johnny-blow-dried-hair gets paid X-amount more than me..."

 

no way. most tv people get paid dick compared to print journalists. ask them sometime.

 

The ones in my town make about 8 bucks an hour. And they have to have nicer clothes than we do. Even on weekends.