School Sites

[Thomas Goldkamp]

This is an issue that has been bugging me for quite some time - the growing trend of school websites trying to do more of what the traditional media does. It's obvious that universities are realizing there is money to be made on the exclusive access they can grant themselves or professional journalists who are under their employ.

Couple bullet points here, and I'll try to streamline them.

1. These sites are competing for the views traditional newspapers and other media entities get. The ones pushing it more obviously compete for views moreso than most other school sites.

2. Let's not kid ourselves, while some schools have hired professional journalists, these guys are basically writing PR pieces for the school. They aren't going to break negative news unless they know for a fact it will get out there and they can "scoop" it.

3. Obviously the major issue is the question of unbiased coverage.

4. If this school site idea continues to grow, at what point do schools just cut off media access and become the only place for news on their team, at which point all objectivity and transparency is gone?

Anyway, reason I finally posted something to get thoughts after biting my tongue for a while is that the school site just posted a headline that literally had me laughing hysterically for about five minutes and then got me all worked up over.

"These Gators Didn't Win a CWS Title, But They Conquered Perhaps a Bigger Challenge"

Link: http://www.gatorzone.com/story.php?id=23330

Now, full disclosure this story comes from a guy I really, really respect. He does great work and many of you know him personally. To be perfectly clear, I have no issues with Scott Carter, who I think is a terrific guy. The story itself is fine, even if it's a PR fluff piece, I'm just using it as a mode of discussion for the bigger topic.

So, I guess what I want to know, is does anyone see this trend as another threat to what we do? If so (and I do), what do we do to explain to readers why they cannot rely on this type of coverage? Should we do that? Will doing it even matter? Or are we all just hosed sooner or later?

 

[Jake_Taylor]

This is an issue that has been bugging me for quite some time - the growing trend of school websites trying to do more of what the traditional media does. It's obvious that universities are realizing there is money to be made on the exclusive access they can grant themselves or professional journalists who are under their employ.

Couple bullet points here, and I'll try to streamline them.

1. These sites are competing for the views traditional newspapers and other media entities get. The ones pushing it more obviously compete for views moreso than most other school sites.

2. Let's not kid ourselves, while some schools have hired professional journalists, these guys are basically writing PR pieces for the school. They aren't going to break negative news unless they know for a fact it will get out there and they can "scoop" it.

3. Obviously the major issue is the question of unbiased coverage.

<b>4. If this school site idea continues to grow, at what point do schools just cut off media access and become the only place for news on their team, at which point all objectivity and transparency is gone?</b>

Anyway, reason I finally posted something to get thoughts after biting my tongue for a while is that the school site just posted a headline that literally had me laughing hysterically for about five minutes and then got me all worked up over.

"These Gators Didn't Win a CWS Title, But They Conquered Perhaps a Bigger Challenge"

Link: http://www.gatorzone.com/story.php?id=23330

That could backfire on schools if they ever take it that far. Right now most sports departments more or less play ball with the sports info departments. We follow their rules about scheduling interviews and don't live tweet press conferences when they ask, etc., all to keep those credentials and reasonable access.

If we get shut out then all bets are off. I want to talk to the quarterback then I'm calling his cell phone or meeting him at his apartment. SID can't tell you players and coaches won't answer questions about a certain topic and expect you not to ask anyway because he's got nothing to threaten you with.


And fans may think they only want to read positive stories, but that will change once they start wondering why nobody is offering an explanation for why the starting cornerback who keeps getting burned hasn't been benched or why players keep getting arrested.

 

[Thomas Goldkamp]

That could backfire on schools if they ever take it that far. Right now most sports departments more or less play ball with the sports info departments. We follow their rules about scheduling interviews and don't live tweet press conferences when they ask, etc., all to keep those credentials and reasonable access.

If we get shut out then all bets are off. I want to talk to the quarterback then I'm calling his cell phone or meeting him at his apartment. SID can't tell you players and coaches won't answer questions about a certain topic and expect you not to ask anyway because he's got nothing to threaten you with.


And fans may think they only want to read positive stories, but that will change once they start wondering why nobody is offering an explanation for why the starting cornerback who keeps getting burned hasn't been benched or why players keep getting arrested.

All good points. I'm not sure it ever gets that far, but it does seem to be becoming a bigger and bigger issue where I am from a competition standpoint. At first, we didn't think it would be, but the more and more "scoops" they get and the more references I see our readers make to the school site, the more I worry about it. There are now two paid staff writers for the the school site who have journalism backgrounds, which is as many as most media outlets covering the beat.

The obvious advantages the traditional media has are negative news and recruiting, which the school sites are kind of hamstrung on.

 

[Stitch]

Not bothered by schools creating their own content. It's a free country. If people don't want to consume the content you produce, that's your outlet's problem.

 

[crimsonace]

It's not surprising. Colleges have an army of SIDs and SID interns to provide cheap labor, and because they're in the business of trying to recruit, they want to control the message as much as possible.

Not only that, but it's another way to monetize the website.

Colleges also have a lot of sports that don't really merit coverage in the traditional media, but they can cover them pretty adequately on the website.

Not only that, but pro teams have been hiring their own beat writers for years ... once Major League Baseball and several NFL teams began providing news directly to their fans and hiring their own "beat writers," that was the beginning for everyone else.

I interviewed for a D3 SID job about 15 years ago. They were saying then that "online is the way to go. Newspapers/traditional media don't give us much space, so we need someone with Web capabilities, so we can go directly to our fans."

Now, we're seeing that in high schools. iHigh (disclaimer: I run an iHigh site) has a business model of essentially trying to do for high schools what the major Web developers/SID departments do for colleges.

 

[Thomas Goldkamp]

It's not necessarily the coverage I'm against. I'm all for those smaller sports getting the coverage they deserve and the readers deserve. I just hate the controlled message and blatant disregard for objectivity. But I guess that's my problem and I should just get over it.

 

[lone star scribe]

It can be a win-win for newspapers and schools, and here's why I think so. It gives the minor sports an outlet that otherwise you wouldn't give column inches or cyberspace to, unless it's a big deal, like someone making an Olympic team or winning some conference championship. Also, if you need to grab a couple of grafs for your roundup, those night games hit the site pretty quickly.

I can't count how many times I've been able to put together my women's college basketball roundup from Internet stories posted by the home-team schools when my teams are on the road. And AP won't move stories on unranked women's teams.

As far as objectivity goes, they're not a newspaper. They're in-house PR. Just roll with it.

 

[crimsonace]

It's not necessarily the coverage I'm against. I'm all for those smaller sports getting the coverage they deserve and the readers deserve. I just hate the controlled message and blatant disregard for objectivity. But I guess that's my problem and I should just get over it.

No, it's not just your problem, and you shouldn't just get over it. Because colleges -- especially -- have an insatiable desire to control the news, and make sure no "bad news" gets leaked out there. There is -- and always will be -- a need for independent media. However, those who own the teams (colleges, pro teams) are producing their own media, and their fans who want the party line (when things are going good) like to get it straight from the team ... until the team starts losing, the starting QB gets tossed in jail and nobody knows about it until the next game because the only reporters at practice worked for the school and covered it up ...

This is a concern, but from the school/team perspective, why rely on independent media when you can produce your own and control the message ... and you have enough money or willing free labor to do it.

 

[crimsonace]

But I will say this from the school perspective: We put links to our iHigh site in everything we hand out to fans at the games, announce them in our public address announcements, et al. We *want* people going to our site to get info.

If the local paper wants the same treatment, they can be a corporate sponsor.

 

[Thomas Goldkamp]

It can be a win-win for newspapers and schools, and here's why I think so. It gives the minor sports an outlet that otherwise you wouldn't give column inches or cyberspace to, unless it's a big deal, like someone making an Olympic team or winning some conference championship. Also, if you need to grab a couple of grafs for your roundup, those night games hit the site pretty quickly.

I can't count how many times I've been able to put together my women's college basketball roundup from Internet stories posted by the home-team schools when my teams are on the road. And AP won't move stories on unranked women's teams.

As far as objectivity goes, they're not a newspaper. They're in-house PR. Just roll with it.

Well this is a really good point, and something I haven't really thought of. I know our members are always asking for more smaller sports coverage and the frequent answer we give them is that we'll cover the major postseason events, but we simply don't have the manpower to cover them like we cover the major sports on a daily basis.

Maybe there's something to be said for using the school sites to our advantage with a little aggregation. Thanks for the post.

 

[crimsonace]

It can be a win-win for newspapers and schools, and here's why I think so. It gives the minor sports an outlet that otherwise you wouldn't give column inches or cyberspace to, unless it's a big deal, like someone making an Olympic team or winning some conference championship. Also, if you need to grab a couple of grafs for your roundup, those night games hit the site pretty quickly.

I can't count how many times I've been able to put together my women's college basketball roundup from Internet stories posted by the home-team schools when my teams are on the road. And AP won't move stories on unranked women's teams.

As far as objectivity goes, they're not a newspaper. They're in-house PR. Just roll with it.

Well this is a really good point, and something I haven't really thought of. I know our members are always asking for more smaller sports coverage and the frequent answer we give them is that we'll cover the major postseason events, but we simply don't have the manpower to cover them like we cover the major sports on a daily basis.

Maybe there's something to be said for using the school sites to our advantage with a little aggregation. Thanks for the post.

The SE of the local paper says he lifts stuff off our iHigh site because it's usually informative and written in exactly the format they want it in (it's basically roundup-style). No problem with that -- part of my job.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I respect the hell out of Scott Carter.

He's a great writer who knows firsthand what it's like to lose your job through no fault of his own. He has better job security at that job than almost anybody working at newspapers these days.

Hell, before I lost my job, I wouldn't have taken a job for a school or a team for just about anything short of crazy money. The second you lose your job, you start looking at those jobs with the schools and the teams and MLB.com and NFL.com completely differently.

Hell, Florida, which is infamous for controlling the media that covers it, hired two outstanding writers to write for its website. No paper covering that school has two writers the equivalent of Carter and Chris Harry.

 

[Chris17]

One big thing that was mentioned breifly, but glossed over..... recruiting. No matter how good the school site is, those same die-hard fans who want night-of coverage of things and only want the party line, they are the same fans who want the recruiting scoop. Colleges can't say a word on recruiting til signing day, which of course for some of these kids is up to two years after the news breaks.

May not be super viable for newspapers, but as far as web coverage - there's a lot of interest out there in recruiting. School run sites will always be at a disadvantage there, and if you play your cards right (with great recruiting coverage), maybe you can get some of those die hards to call the real media site home.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

One big thing that was mentioned breifly, but glossed over..... recruiting. No matter how good the school site is, those same die-hard fans who want night-of coverage of things and only want the party line, they are the same fans who want the recruiting scoop. Colleges can't say a word on recruiting til signing day, which of course for some of these kids is up to two years after the news breaks.

May not be super viable for newspapers, but as far as web coverage - there's a lot of interest out there in recruiting. School run sites will always be at a disadvantage there, and if you play your cards right (with great recruiting coverage), maybe you can get some of those die hards to call the real media site home.

Outstanding point...

 

[Armchair_QB]

It's not necessarily the coverage I'm against. I'm all for those smaller sports getting the coverage they deserve and the readers deserve. I just hate the controlled message and blatant disregard for objectivity. But I guess that's my problem and I should just get over it.

No, it's not just your problem, and you shouldn't just get over it. Because colleges -- especially -- have an insatiable desire to control the news, and make sure no "bad news" gets leaked out there. There is -- and always will be -- a need for independent media. However, those who own the teams (colleges, pro teams) are producing their own media, and their fans who want the party line (when things are going good) like to get it straight from the team ... until the team starts losing, the starting QB gets tossed in jail and nobody knows about it until the next game because the only reporters at practice worked for the school and covered it up ...

This is a concern, but from the school/team perspective, why rely on independent media when you can produce your own and control the message ... and you have enough money or willing free labor to do it.

Fellas, schools will never get to the point where they feel the need to cut off media access. People running newspapers will have killed off beat reporters long before it comes to that.

Also, if you're running an athletic department in this day and age you want fans to come to your website for information first. It's not against the law to manage your own message. That doesn't mean a good reporter can't still do his job. The best stories are usually the ones you get without any help from the school.

But as newspapers continue to shrink in staff size and print days and owners opt for the "young and cheap" hiring strategy it won't be long before a school website is putting out a better product than the local paper. That day is coming and my guess is the first place you'll see it will be in New Orleans or Alabama.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The Redskins were the first team to regularly release news on its website. When they started doing that, people screamed and moaned about it.

Now, it's pretty common with professional and college teams.

With travel budgets going down almost every year, papers are going to need to find reasons why fans of said teams need to go to their sites. As someone pointed out, for colleges, recruiting may be the biggest reason.

If I want Florida game coverage? Hell, I'd read Carter and Harry over the beat guys who cover UF.

 

[Alma]

No matter how good the school site is, those same die-hard fans who want night-of coverage of things and only want the party line, they are the same fans who want the recruiting scoop. Colleges can't say a word on recruiting til signing day, which of course for some of these kids is up to two years after the news breaks.

Who do you think feeds the recruiting sites scoops? The 17-year-old kid?

 

[Alma]

If I want Florida game coverage? Hell, I'd read Carter and Harry over the beat guys who cover UF.

The heartwarming tale of a gymnast who overcame the odds or a swimmer with a monkey heart? Yes. Sure.

When they get dropped 38-0 by Alabama? You'll read them then, too? Did they say Will Muschamp laid a rotten egg when he hired Charlie Weis as a terrible one-year OC, revealing how little Muschamp knew about hiring a staff? Would you trust them to say that?

I have friends who work on that side of the fence, in university PR. Wonderful folks. But I know what they do and what they don't do.

 

[Thomas Goldkamp]

I respect the hell out of Scott Carter.

He's a great writer who knows firsthand what it's like to lose your job through no fault of his own. He has better job security at that job than almost anybody working at newspapers these days.

Hell, before I lost my job, I wouldn't have taken a job for a school or a team for just about anything short of crazy money. The second you lose your job, you start looking at those jobs with the schools and the teams and MLB.com and NFL.com completely differently.

Hell, Florida, which is infamous for controlling the media that covers it, hired two outstanding writers to write for its website. No paper covering that school has two writers the equivalent of Carter and Chris Harry.

Completely agree with all of that. Hell, I'd love to be able to write like Scott some day.

But, as Alma pointed out, I totally disagree about preferring to read game coverage from Scott or Chris. Alma pointed out the reasons why better than I.

 

[Chris17]

No matter how good the school site is, those same die-hard fans who want night-of coverage of things and only want the party line, they are the same fans who want the recruiting scoop. Colleges can't say a word on recruiting til signing day, which of course for some of these kids is up to two years after the news breaks.

Who do you think feeds the recruiting sites scoops? The 17-year-old kid?

Yeah, absolutely. In my experience, more often than not, their parents. We also get tons from high school and AAU/club team/travel teams (whichever is applicable to that sport) coaches. I mean tons. Far more info from parents and kids, then coaches, than anything. Colleges - some will, but not nearly as often or as early as the kids (or parents or coaches) themselves.

Think about it. What parent doesn't want to see their kids featured on whatverwebsite.com and listed as a 3-star athlete? What coach doesn't want their HS featured, or what AAU team doesn't want to boast their 6 Div I commitments featured? It's a big deal to these people who otherwise won't get the media coverage if they live in Chicagoland but committed to Texas A&M for basketball....