New Post-Dispatch sports columnist ...

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Interesting to see Benjamin Hochman as he tries to replace Bernie Miklasz as the main columnist with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Doesn't seem to be hitting the ground running, and not making many friends with readers - though to be fair, it's a little bit of an impossible job to fill the shoes of a columnist who was there as long as Bernie was, and is as beloved as Bernie is.

Here's an example: The reports are that Hochman is "close to" Rams owner Stan Kroenke, and he has yet to dive deeply into the Rams-to-LA possibility from the Kroenke angle. Bernie was all over this story, with everything but talking to the hermit-like owner, and here's what Hochman checks in with today: Hochman: NFL should make Redskins change name : Sports. An old topic and not really on the front burner for St. Louis sports fans.

The Post-Dispatch reader forums are where Bernie really seemed to make a connection with readers, with interaction, answering questions and making readers think their opinion is being considered.

Since taking over more than two weeks ago, Hochman has a total of 11 posts in the forum (Bernie would have that amount in a half-day), doesn't answer any questions and started a thread today titled "Let's talk" about the Redskins column, and his totality of the "Let's talk" seems to be his initial post. He put it out there and checked out. View topic - My Redskins column. Let's talk....

I don't know if he's being pulled in a thousand different directions and is having trouble handling it all or what, but definitely not the start he needed to have.

 

[Alma]

It would be a bit much to ask a guy who's 2-3 weeks on the job to untangle and unpack the Rams/moving mess the way Bernie had addressed it, even if Hochman is originally from the area.

I know St. Louis a little bit from back in the day, it is my sense that folks there are hyper-local fans who aren't necessarily real worked up about talk radio-style debates.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Then he probably shouldn't have time to weigh in on the Redskins name controversy that hasn't exactly riveted the St. Louis sports community. If he has a relationship with Kroenke - which apparently no one else in the media there has - he's wasting a prime opportunity.

Miklasz was awesome about being active on those forums daily, discussing things with readers who both agreed or disagreed with him. With Bernie still in the market, it's a big failing to have a columnist refuse to do the same. And for him to start a "let's talk" thread and then ignore it is almost stunning.

 

[Doc Holliday]

And for him to start a "let's talk" thread and then ignore it is almost stunning.

Now, 89 posts in, and he's yet to respond to anyone. Maybe he should change the title of the thread to "You talk about My column."

Wow. Just wow.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Then he probably shouldn't have time to weigh in on the Redskins name controversy that hasn't exactly riveted the St. Louis sports community. If he has a relationship with Kroenke - which apparently no one else in the media there has - he's wasting a prime opportunity.

1) Do we know he does, or is that just what message board fanbois say? I know one writer who is an alum of at least five different schools according to the forums.

2) Why is he wasting a prime opportunity? Maybe he is going to write next week. Or the week after. Or when the timing is right or he has a better feel for a complex issue that most of the locals don't even fully understand.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Here's from the story introducing him as the new columnist.

“I’m going to jump into every big issue as soon as I can with all the teams — Cardinals, Blues, Rams, Mizzou football, what have you,” he said.

The Rams’ situation, with a possible move to Los Angeles expected to be in the headlines all fall, will be a focal point. And he has a connection with Rams owner Stan Kroenke, having covered him in Denver — where Kroenke’s family owns the city’s NBA and NHL teams.

“It’s good jumping into this new job knowing I have a background knowledge of the family,’’ Hochman said. “I’ve written some tough stuff about them over the years and the good thing is that we’re all grown-ups here and we treat each other with respect even if there is frustration.

“Obviously the Rams means Kroenke and it means this huge story overtaking what actually could be a pretty good season on the field.”

If he's easing into it and will write when the time is right, that's fine. But with taking over from a very well-connected, well-respected journalist who is still in town working for another media outlet, it's a pretty big risk to not hit the ground running, IMO.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Frankly, that intro writeup sounds like bull****. Stan Kroenke does not have any media relationships -- his comments are extremely rare and only serve his pre-set agenda. So if that's what people are latching onto, that is the fault of the editor making the columnist sound more in the know than he or anyone else actually is with that family.

Regarding the column on the Redskins' name, I don't know what the P-D has done on it, but it is worth noting that they play the Rams this week, and peeking in at something involving the other team isn't exactly out of bounds either.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

Frankly, that intro writeup sounds like bull****. Stan Kroenke does not have any media relationships -- his comments are extremely rare and only serve his pre-set agenda. So if that's what people are latching onto, that is the fault of the editor making the columnist sound more in the know than he or anyone else actually is with that family.

Regarding the column on the Redskins' name, I don't know what the P-D has done on it, but it is worth noting that they play the Rams this week, and peeking in at something involving the other team isn't exactly out of bounds either.

I agree it sounds like bull****. But ... I'd also be very surprised if the editor or writer of that piece pulled that "he has a connection with Rams owner Stan Kroenke" thing out of thin air.

 

[swingline]

I've read his columns and have been underwhelmed. He might be better on the podcasts with Goold, but I don't watch those (or any podcasts, for that matter).

 

[Matt Stephens]

Ben isn't going to do things like Bernie. That's just the way it is. Ben reached a younger audience in Denver that Woody and Kizla don't. He's a younger columnist, makes younger references and approaches things differently. Hasn't traditionally been a hot take guy, and that's a good thing. Features and making you laugh/feel with columns is where Ben shines. And I highly doubt Ben will be deep into forum engagement unless he's pushed from the powers at be. Twitter is his second home and he's great at engaging with readers and growing an audience there. To expect him to come and be Bernie is ridiculous. Why would a guy three weeks on the job be as entrenched in the St. Louis community as a longtime columnist? He was hired to be himself and not emulate the person who held the job last.

Look at Gregg Doyle in Indianapolis. Does a hell of a job, but he doesn't do it the way Kravitz does. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Alma]

Ben isn't going to do things like Bernie. That's just the way it is. Ben reached a younger audience in Denver that Woody and Kizla don't. He's a younger columnist, makes younger references and approaches things differently.

St. Louis is an old school town. The "wit and whimsy of the millennial" hits a bloop single there. If we're honest, Bernie shined there precisely because he was neck-deep in the details and forums. It's what people want in STL. It's a baseball town - the craziest on Earth, probably - and baseball fans are insane human beings.

And I highly doubt Ben will be deep into forum engagement unless he's pushed from the powers at be. Twitter is his second home and he's great at engaging with readers and growing an audience there.

Which makes money for Twitter. Or doesn't make money for Twitter, because Twitter doesn't make money, but it doesn't make very much money for your employer, leveraging that place. It's good for fielding questions and then writing about that on your site, but Twitter is largely a waste of time for journalists. As in, they waste their time there, for ****ing hours, when they could be doing something much more useful. It does not drive generally traffic. The same 9 people care about your opinion on there. Most journalists are not nearly as funny or witty or insightful as they imagine themselves to be on there. I don't mean this specifically about Hochman - I've never seen his Twitter feed and wouldn't have any cause to - but as a universal truth. That's because, with the rarest of exceptions, they serve little more than the individual ego of the person in question. It does not make journalists better. It turns them into, as it has turned Clay Travis into, a mindless strip mall of words.

Twitter should be no journalist's content home, second, third, summer cottage, or otherwise. It is, again, truly overrated.

 

[BDC99]

I agree with almost all of that. I don't get the infatuation with Twitter. It's a good place to link stories or photos, but as a news tool/content home? Nah. The only time I really follow it is I need info on a live game I can't get on one of the major sites or I am expecting some news to break or need an update on breaking news.

 

[BDC99]

Oh, and I really don't need you tweet about EVERY play. If I cared that much, I'd watch or listen to it.

 

[LanceyHoward]

St. Louis is an old school town. The "wit and whimsy of the millennial" hits a bloop single there. If we're honest, Bernie shined there precisely because he was neck-deep in the details and forums. It's what people want in STL. It's a baseball town - the craziest on Earth, probably - and baseball fans are insane human beings.



Which makes money for Twitter. Or doesn't make money for Twitter, because Twitter doesn't make money, but it doesn't make very much money for your employer, leveraging that place. It's good for fielding questions and then writing about that on your site, but Twitter is largely a waste of time for journalists. As in, they waste their time there, for ****ing hours, when they could be doing something much more useful. It does not drive generally traffic. The same 9 people care about your opinion on there. Most journalists are not nearly as funny or witty or insightful as they imagine themselves to be on there. I don't mean this specifically about Hochman - I've never seen his Twitter feed and wouldn't have any cause to - but as a universal truth. That's because, with the rarest of exceptions, they serve little more than the individual ego of the person in question. It does not make journalists better. It turns them into, as it has turned Clay Travis into, a mindless strip mall of words.

Twitter should be no journalist's content home, second, third, summer cottage, or otherwise. It is, again, truly overrated.

I always have felt that a fan forum is a place where a very small number of people engage with a sportswriter but that it really does not attract a very broad audience. Does anyone know of any empirical data?

 

[BDC99]

My guess would be that in most cases it's like a fan message board in that it only attracts hardcore fans. But I'd also guess that Alma is correct that it would attract a ton of Cards fans in St. Louis. There are a lot who are hardcore. Most of the city, it would seem.

 

[Doc Holliday]

St. Louis is an old school town. The "wit and whimsy of the millennial" hits a bloop single there. If we're honest, Bernie shined there precisely because he was neck-deep in the details and forums. It's what people want in STL. It's a baseball town - the craziest on Earth, probably - and baseball fans are insane human beings.



Which makes money for Twitter. Or doesn't make money for Twitter, because Twitter doesn't make money, but it doesn't make very much money for your employer, leveraging that place. It's good for fielding questions and then writing about that on your site, but Twitter is largely a waste of time for journalists. As in, they waste their time there, for ****ing hours, when they could be doing something much more useful. It does not drive generally traffic. The same 9 people care about your opinion on there. Most journalists are not nearly as funny or witty or insightful as they imagine themselves to be on there. I don't mean this specifically about Hochman - I've never seen his Twitter feed and wouldn't have any cause to - but as a universal truth. That's because, with the rarest of exceptions, they serve little more than the individual ego of the person in question. It does not make journalists better. It turns them into, as it has turned Clay Travis into, a mindless strip mall of words.

Twitter should be no journalist's content home, second, third, summer cottage, or otherwise. It is, again, truly overrated.

God I love this post. It damn well gave me an erection.

 

[Matt Stephens]

Which makes money for Twitter. Or doesn't make money for Twitter, because Twitter doesn't make money, but it doesn't make very much money for your employer, leveraging that place. It's good for fielding questions and then writing about that on your site, but Twitter is largely a waste of time for journalists. As in, they waste their time there, for ****ing hours, when they could be doing something much more useful. It does not drive generally traffic. The same 9 people care about your opinion on there. Most journalists are not nearly as funny or witty or insightful as they imagine themselves to be on there. I don't mean this specifically about Hochman - I've never seen his Twitter feed and wouldn't have any cause to - but as a universal truth. That's because, with the rarest of exceptions, they serve little more than the individual ego of the person in question. It does not make journalists better. It turns them into, as it has turned Clay Travis into, a mindless strip mall of words.

Twitter should be no journalist's content home, second, third, summer cottage, or otherwise. It is, again, truly overrated.

Should it be the No. 1 home for your content? Of course not, but it should probably be No. 3/4. If all you're doing on Twitter is posting links and photos, then you're not worth a follow because you're no better than an RSS feed. I can get the same stuff and more in a Google news alert. But you can't just not exist there, especially in a large market where there are 100 other places to get insight on the local sports scene. I don't care how loyal your paper's readership is, the potential new readers out there aren't seeking you out; you have to go to where they are, and that's Facebook (by far No. 1 for social referrals) and then Twitter. You be active, engage with your audience, grow that audience, then bring them back to your site after they're hooked by giving them links to your stuff. Do you just mouth off most of your opinions on social media? Again, of course not, because what point is there to read your columns? But you have to be interesting, and Ben definitely is.

Diving into the message boards on STLtoday.com helps grow a rapport with your subscriber base, which is absolutely important, but it does nothing to grow an audience and draw a new crowd in.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm just going to agree to disagree here.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

At the core of it, whether you're active on Twitter, Snapchat, Periscope, Facebook, forums, whatever, you have to have compelling content. I have yet to read something from Ben that makes me think he's a must-read and makes me want to click on the site tomorrow to see what he has to say. If you go back and read what he's put out there since arriving, I don't think any impartial reader would argue that he's had a successful start.

Re: the forums, the P-D's forums are very well-trafficked. As of right now, there are 84 threads just in the Cards Talk section that have been active in the last 24 hours. The numbers are similar for the Rams Talk, and a little slower for Mizzou and the Blues. In the Hoch Corner, which was set up solely for him, there are 6 that have seen postings in the last 24 hours. He hasn't posted in the last three days-plus.

Obviously he and his bosses don't think it's a priority, otherwise he would be on there more. But they set up that portion of the forums just for him, and he's seen fit to post 11 times in the last three weeks, including a "Let's talk" that's more along the lines of "Talk about me." That's a pretty poor decision, IMO, given that readers who go to that portion of the forums are a captive audience, there to interact with him (with ad content, BTW), and he is basically saying it's not worth his time to engage with readers there. Shoot, there are as many posts on the forums linking to and talking about Bernie's columns at his new place as there are total posts from Ben.

But I guess it's more important for Ben to work through his standup routine on Twitter.

 

[michael_badley]

Feel the need to defend Hochman here, considering he's professionally new to the area and, like Matt pointed out, should not be expected to do the job the same way Bernie did. That's ridiculous and unfair. His introductory column posted Sept. 3. That's a little more than two weeks ago. If you're still having these criticisms in three months, then okay. But less than a month into the job? Come on.

Also, the Rams are playing at Washington this week. A column about the team name seems appropriate, especially considering Benjamin often waded into social issues in Denver. And finally, the intro said he had a "connection" with Kroenke, not a relationship. Right? Did I miss something? He does have a connection, since Hochman covered the Nuggets for a long time and the Nuggets are owned by the Kroenkes. Meaning (I assume) Benjamin interacted with and covered them; maybe he does have a relationship or even a friendship with Stan Kroenke, but I haven't read that anywhere.

I don't read the P-D often, so I can't say how important the interaction on the site's message boards are, though at my paper that's neither an expectation nor overly encouraged. Just because Bernie did it, doesn't signal that Benjamin necessarily should, though I may be dead wrong on that. I'm a pretty big fan of Benjamin's (and, full disclosure, a pal), so I'm a little surprised to read all this. Feels a little personal, or maybe Hochman just isn't your taste, which is fine. I'm personally glad he is taking on the job his own way rather than trying to be Bernie. That'd be a mistake. Anyway. I just think we should give the guy at least a month before saying it ain't working.