Trivial question. Why do ESPN writers not have @espn.com email addresses?

Ding, ding, ding. If you won't be accessing your work e-mail regularly, this is the way to go. I understand it's different for freelancers, but there's no excuse for staff writers to use non-staff addresses when they can easily be directed to a personal address.

 

That's what she said.

 

There are several reasons, no point going into, that I couldn't do this. Not technical -- that part is easy -- but logistical.

I really am having a bit of a hard time understanding the big deal with personal e-mail addresses on the bottom of stories or columns. I'm seeing neither the unprofessionalism nor the lack of organization. One reason NOT to do it is that it might reveal an e-mail protocol that gets people to those who don't wish to be e-mailed in that same company.

To me, if the e-mail address for writer feedback works, it works. Doesn't matter to me what the account is.

 

I'm stumped on what the big deal here is, too. If it's a formal e-mail address that the writer never checks or responds to, it's worthless. If it's some casual, third-party address that functions just fine from both ends, that's swell.

I'm not moved, though, by SF_Express' defense that it allows some people to hide from an e-mail protocol that might be deciphered. Now that seems unprofessional. Either ignore the e-mails or respond to them, and set up something separate for your "important" stuff, but to have a goal of being unreachable -- in the media business -- is some serious hypocrisy. With all due respect, SF_Express, what is there to be afraid of? That someone might ask you for a job?

 

No, I have no problem with people having my work e-mail address.

Maybe it really is a matter of changing times, but five years ago, I don't think a newspaper publisher, for the ultimate example, would appreciate it if by getting a reporter's e-mail address, you could e-mail the publisher.

Similarly, if you work for one of the major Internet sites that's part of a television network, I don't know that all the on-air NFL talent, for example, wants everybody in Pittsburgh e-mailing them about something they said about the Steelers. Or if the news broadcasters want e-mail from Obama or McCain supporters...

Then again, perhaps that WAS five years ago, and such accessibility is part of working in the media business today.

And upon further review, leaving reporters' regular e-mail addresses off stories for that reason is pretty dumb. People who want to be less accessible publicly in the company can just request a different e-mail convention. So carry on.

 

Now it's five years later, and I think most publishers are more nervous about getting e-mail from a reporter. Could contain e-anthrax or an e-bomb.

 

Simple explanation: If you're employed by ESPN and work for .com, you get an espn3.com address. This was done because ESPN's digital media division was originally on a different back-end network that was more open than the regular computer network. If you're a contract writer on staff, you don't have a espn3 email, thus the emails that many of the writers have.