Why do you like or dislike blogs/bloggers?

Clearly I was talking about a well-attended forum like this...

But what difference does a BLOG make if nobody reads it? So many blogs I check out, the comments section has like 1 response.

Also, I've noticed that we (SportsJournalists.com) provide the fodder for bloggers, talk radio hosts, etc. etc. etc.

People come here, read the exchange of ideas and say, "Hey, I think I'll start a blog. Maybe I can get the kind of traffic SportsJournalists.com gets."

But it's just not the same.

If a tree falls in the forest...

 

It's true. But the thing is that a blog doesn't even hinge on comments/readers. It exists so that its writer has a platform to publish his/her message for public consumption, regardless of whether the public consumes it. It's like handing out pamphlets on the street corner, or perhaps more akin to hosting your own radio talkshow. Nobody may be listening, but at least you get to rant, and even if someone comments and disagrees with you, you always have the last word. A lot of good blogs do have great interaction between the writer and the readers, but a lot of blogs exist not to be a venue for interaction or discussion, but merely as a voice of one (the writer). I think the ability to have that public platform is what makes blogs attractive to so many, and the consequent popularity of blogs is what draws the attention that they have gotten.

 

Just because a blog does not receive a lot of comments does not mean it is well read or not. With so many blogs, it is not possible to comment on everything. When I started the Business Controls Caddy blog back in July 2004, I wondered if anybody was really reading it because comments were not often left. But I would often show up at a conference or a customer site and people would walk up and say "hey it's great to meet you! I read your blog all the time."

One of the funniest moments was at a pre-conference party at the ESPN SportsZone on the Disney Boardwalk. Two women kept staring at me, which was great for the ego, but a little scary. Then they realized they recognized me from the blog and walked up and started a conversation. The blog led to writing and speaking opportunities, as well as a seat on an editorial board. A forum would not have led to these opportunities.

Forums can be a great place to exchange ideas and content. The downside is that a lot, like this one are poorly designed. The interface colors make my eyes hurt, and people are registered here under fictitious names with no relevant information on their profiles. So unless a reader knows who the person behind the mask is, they have no way to assess their credibility. This is of course understandable because you want to have frank discussions without fear of retribution from your employers or other people.

<<==BEGIN SOAPBOX

But it also allows you all to have totally inappropriate discussion threads, full of graphical sex discussions and use of language, that can and probably are accessed by kids and teenagers. They would also never be tolerated in the workplace. I have a huge problem with the lack of responsibility shown in this area and if you all has real names on here, you could and probably should e called on the carper for it. A well run blog, where the owners are upfront about who they are and have rules of engagement on the type of language/discussions that are allowed, has a lot more credibility in the context of the greater good for society. This is the reason why this site will NEVER be included as a recommended link on our site or mentioned in any articles (And yes, our traffic is growing every day). Yes, we have links to sites like Awful Announcing that do close to the same thing, but I hold them to a different standard than media professionals.

END SOAPBOX==>>

Sports, or any other type of blogs, that do not provide full disclosure have ZERO credibility and you will not find them in my RSS Reader (unless I personally know who they are).

The other problem with a forum designed like this is that there are NO RSS FEEDS for the main areas. That means that people have to actively come to the site to see what content is new or updated. That is so "old media", and is not they way most of the up and coming generation of readers get their news and information. It also means that the statistics for the site are artificially inflated, because people are forced to come to the site to read the content.

Time to get back to the real work now...

 

Crap, without a link on your site, I imagine SportsJournalists.com will shut down soon.

That's a fucking shame.

 

Did I say that?

And do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

 

Blogs have done a great service to good reporting but they have cluttered up and devalued opinion and commentary.

Good reporting -- the actual nuts-and-bolts search for truth and significant information -- stands out from the clutter now more than ever. Not many blogs are doing very good reporting, so the value of guys who are breaking news -- like Ken Rosenthal in baseball, for example -- goes up.

But newspaper columnists who shoot from the couch? What's the difference between one of them and a well-written blog? Everyone has an opinion. Some of the blogs, many of which are written by very smart people who do a tremendous amount of research, must seem very threatening to columnists who've become used to phoning it in.

 

Mom's dead.

 

I am currently writing a guest column for a trade publication on the tension between Sportswriters and blogs/bloggers. I am asking for your thoughtful, cuss-free, reasons why you dislike or like blogs/bloggers. If you would like to respond, could you address the following questions? Keep in mind that with 3 exceptions, I have no idea who any of you all are in real life so this will be anonymous unless you choose to disclose (which you can do by sending me an email).

So here goes:

1. Are you a beat writer, columnist, both, or other? if other, please indicate your role in sports journalism)
I'm the managing editor of a community weekly newspaper. I often cover sports since my goal is to be a sportswriter.

2. What is your definition of a journalist? How do you react to/define the term "Citizen Journalist"?
I define a journalist as someone who is charged with reporting news to an audience. The term "citizen journalist" doesn't bother me. We're all citizens.

3. What is your definition of a blog?
A blog is a collection of entries on an Internet site.

4. Do you have a blog on your employer's web site? If so, how is your blog different than other sports blogs?
No. I don't see the need to start a blog, nor am I willing to put in the additional time required to police one.

5. What do you see the difference between a newspaper column and a blog posting?
I see access issues as the biggest difference. A newspaper columnist doesn't have to jump through hoops to get public officials on the phone or e-mail (some of the time). Many times, I notice that bloggers shoot from the hip without interviewing someone they're writing about.

6. If a blog is written by former sportswriters, is your opinion about the blog different?
No.

7. What is your age range? 18-30, 31-40, 40-50, 50+
31-40.

8. Do you feel professionally (or personally) threatened by sports blogs?
Not at all. They're a different medium and they reach a different audience.

9. Do you think bloggers should have the same legal protections as journalists? Why or why not?
Yes. The First Amendment wasn't written solely for the press at the exclusion of all other people. The Freedom Of Information Act wasn't written solely for the press to compel public entities to turn over records. They were designed for all Americans to hold elected officials accountable to their real bosses: The American people.

9. Is what you do relevant in the Internet Age? (this one actually comes from a friend who is going to ask a restaurant critic this question over dinner tonight)
I try to be. My newspaper often posts stories as they happen, which we call Web Exclusives. When we do this and we follow up by running the stories in the print edition, we usually include some indication that the story already appeared on our Web site. This week, I included the full text of a story online that I had to cut for space reasons in the print edition. I included a teaser to let people know to go to the Web site for the full story.

10. If you could have a one on one session with your most liked/disliked blogger, what advice or critique would you give them (and feel free to name the blogs here)?
I don't think of anyone in particular I'd like to talk to.

11. Should bloggers be given press credentials for events, and if so under what circumstances/rules?
If the blogger is going to represent himself or herself in a professional manner, I have no problems with granting a press credential to one. If the blogger asks questions that make it clear he or she is trying to be objective, I welcome his or her presence. However, if the blogger starts cheering in the press box, my patience just fell off a cliff.

 

Our own Elliotte Friedman had an interesting feature on HNIC two weeks ago about the Washington Capitals credentialing bloggers for home games. The Caps understand that they're not getting print coverage because (A) in a major sports city, they're bringing up the rear and (B) to get coverage, they may have to open themselves up to the blogosphere.

I have read some of the bloggers that the Caps credentialed--hell, some are saved as favorites. But for every Off Wing Opinion and Mirtle blog, there's an Eklund that throws shit against a wall and hope it sticks. Until there's some sort of implementation of standards, I'm going to take blogs on a base-by-base basis.

 

Hey, thanks for reading my blog.

 

And yet, you're here.

All the time seemingly.

 

Forum was always my favorite part of Penth....

Oh, forums. Never mind.