What is newsworthy?

In a day and age when getting news out to readers is as easy as picking up your phone, I'm wondering what is newsworthy these days. While I'm still young (32), I prefer the old style of getting news and the old style of journalism, because, it was just that: journalism.

Reading the sports "news" today, I have a hard time believe that the war of words between Antonio Cromartie and Tom Brady is really newsworthy. Big deal, so they don't like each other. I get that writers have to go about their business, because they don't want to NOT have a story that a competitor has, but I'm not a fan of "reaction stories." If someone says something about someone, writers need to go to that person and get a "reaction" for another whole story. It's boring, forced and doesn't make for good reading.

Twitter doesn't help. I really didn't think what LeBron tweeted the other night was all that newsworthy, even though it was obvious he was begging for attention. I just feel that with the blogosphere and the internet and the industry as competitive as it is, the idea of journalism is being cheapened.

Who knows, maybe this industry is already passing me by.

 

Joe Namath guaranteeing a victory in the Super Bowl disagrees with you.

 

I think you just proved my point: I don't remember ever seeing another story about Earl Morrall's reaction to the guarantee.

 

Your mom is newsworthy.

Also, your face.

 

Considering I don't know you, that was wildly inappropriate, not to mention nonsensical ... But OK.

 

Ultimately, you decide what is newsworthy for yourself and your publication. To me, the Cromartie stuff is newsworthy, because it's not every day that you get someone coming out and saying "F (insert player here)" to the media. It's the same reason I find Terrell Suggs calling the Ravens-Steelers game 'World War III' and 'Armageddon' a newsworthy item. It's interesting and it's going to draw eyeballs to it.

The LeBron tweet isn't newsworthy in the sense that I'd run a story on it, although I'd certainly at least give it a mention in an NBA/sports roundup if he were to come out, acknowledge it and clarify what he was saying.

 

Yes, the big change has been the additional use of snippets that allow this kind of "news" to get in the paper 1 and 2 paragraphs at a time.

 

If it bleeds, it leads?

 

The trash talk between the players I can see. But that story about Favre's sister being arrested on meth charges was non-starter for me.

 

Nowadays, what is newsworthy is decided by your audience.

 

This is the same argument I get into it with with News all the time. I'm not saying print Lady Gaga's sex scandal, but at what point do we come down off our ivory tower and relax a little bit.

You can read anything you want out there on the interwebs, and it's clear to see what people gravitate toward. So, do we ignore what the readers want and give them what we think they should have. I think it's somewhere in the middle.

It's almost like we're the news parents: I know you want candy, but it's no good for you. Here, read about this earthquake in a country you've never heard of that barely killed 50 people.

They talk all the time about appealing to a younger readership. If that's so true, don't make me fight for five minutes to get a damn Verizon/iPhone story in the paper somewhere other than the business page.

At the end of the day, we're a section of the paper that covers what is basically entertainment. Let's not overthink that. However, let's not go off the deep edge either.

 

I don't see how the public and inflammatory comments of one prominent player about another immediately before a playoff game wouldn't be newsworthy. If we only wrote about literally what happens on the field, we'd be missing a large part of the actual story. There are lots of questionable news items, but Cromartie vs. Brady is very much a valid playoff storyline.