Why do sportswriters resent blogs?

[Bruce_Shoebottom]

I don't equate changing with the times with becoming a sycophant.

 

[shotglass]

Bruce, you're proposing that we turn blogs into a negative positive. And frankly, I see no way of that happening. Blogs are not a good thing to anyone who is truly a journalist, because it lowers the standards of publication.

Period.

 

[Major Batman]

I see some writers are getting upset by the message board comments. This isn't a new deal. Fans have always ripped anything negative about their team. They've always praised writers who were homers. The only difference is now there is a public forum for it. Before it was at the office, the mill, or the local watering hole. Now it is on the idiotnet and the wack fringe folks spurring each other on.

It's not new. Just more public.

<i>Just once I'd like to catch all my typos before I hit submit</i>

 

[shotglass]

<i>Just once I'd like to catch all my typos before I hit submit</i>

(I haven't for three years, so I don't see why anyone else shloud should...)

 

[fishwrapper]

The age in which newspapers had a near-monopoly over the dissemination of information is over.

This was typed with the advent of the telegraph. Then, the radio. Then, television. Then, cable television...
I suppose if you ignore those vehicles for disseminating news, it is a "near monopoly."

So why do some of us get our panties all bunched up about blogs, and not the telegraph, then? The telegraph, radio, and cable TV weren't direct changes in the medium of the printed word. The Internet is. If you can't see that, it isn't even worth getting into.

You said newspapers had a "near-monopoly over the dissemination of information."
Now you're talking about the "printed word." It's not the same argument.
We get our "panties all bunched" -- certainly your words, not mine -- because the vehicle for delivering the news is different and, as a result, a different threat. But, as I've stated before, 90% of bloggers don't deliver news, only opine second and third-hand information.

 

[lantaur]

But, as I've stated before, 90% of bloggers don't deliver news, only opine second and third-hand information.

So why should sportswriters care about these bloggers so much? Not saying all do (or you do), but there certainly are a fair share judging by the article posted here and the venom spewed on this message board whenever anyone mentions a blog or blogger.

 

[shotglass]

A better question might be, why would you champion it?

 

[Pringle]

Easy answer - because of how combative and dismissive they are of the "MSM." It's insulting. Then you get upset because the "MSM" writers don't embrace all of you? Go figure.

It's the same reason that old-school scouts aren't kissing the "Moneyball"/Jamesian people's asses.

Those people showed up on the scene and just started essentially dismissing and making fun of all of their forbearers' life work. Then they played dumb and innocent and acted like, "Why do they hate us so much?"

Same thing with bloggers.

If respect is what you seek, you don't gain it by acting like a condescending jackoff.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Your Aunt Susan does a blog? Did she post any pictures of herself? :D

Yeah, and she proveably hot. Demonstrably hot.

 

[shotglass]

Thank you, Pringle.

 

[lantaur]

Shotglass: I'm not championing fanboy blogs, but I give them the right to post whatever the hell they want no matter how inane.

Pringle: I don't think all bloggers hate mainstream writers. Another generalization. But, do you know what? People hated mainstream writers before blogs were invented. And you know what else? There are a lot of bad mainstream writers.

One thing I wish fans would understand is the relationship between the press and athletes/teams ... you can't go in there guns-a-blazing and ask controversial questions. You have to form relationships, develop sources, etc., or else you'll be nudged out and get nothing. Of course, some writers are more than happy to never ask anything controversial.

The street runs two ways for everyone.

(Note: I should add that I am not a fanboy blogger and have been a part of the sports journalism world for a while, but I have also embraced the online sports journalism world)

 

[shotglass]

Shotglass: I'm not championing fanboy blogs, but I give them the right to post whatever the hell they want no matter how inane.

Now, I'm definitely not one to throw out the "good old days" line often, but this may be one case in which it's apropros.

It used to be that you had to have some sort of credentials to put your "analysis" out there for mass consumption. That's been lost, thanks to the Internet, and I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

 

[Riddick]

My little cousin has an blog about the NFL. It reads pretty well. He gathers info from other sites and crap like that.
Is it really worth reading? Hell no! He's friggin 15 and never met an NFL player in his life.

 

[Rick Shanley]

Oh, I think it might be more than a passing fad when Joe Sixpack realizes he can draw an audience without putting in four years of college and working his way up the ladder to do it.

Either you're a talented writer or you aren't, so I don't think it matters that a person has a four-year degree, etc. There are plenty of writers out there who went to school for something else and wound up writing, or who went to school for journalism and are now doing something else. Good writers write material people want to read. Bottom line. It doesn't matter to me whether it's on a blog or in a newspaper.

 

[Chris_Dankberg]

Anybody know why this debate is progressing so furiously at SportsJournalists.com? I discovered this site about six months ago and read - didn't post. The discussions at that time were very journalism focused. It was different, but not titillating. Now, this forum, for better or worse, has turned into a discussion on the online media and the more traditional media. I guess a lot of that has to do with the Big Sexy. But thebiglead is here as well. And I imagine other people from the sports world are reading, if not participating. My question is, when does this stuff spill over? Do the millions of PTI viewers who don't have any idea what The Big Lead is become more aware after PTI runs a retraction? ESPN is collating information from the 'underground' in the same way that the bigger "bloggers" are collating information from around the sports world.

That paragraph is a little disjointed. But I just don't understand the division, any longer. As you guys have pointed out, it's the audience that's key. And there are some bloggers with very large audiences. I don't love the format of blogs. But I do love the democratization of information. And I love that there are people out there (attempting) to keep ESPN honest. Newspapers have never voiced a lot of the criticisms that huge sports fans - the core audience of their pages - were making privately. Once sites like Deadpsin and The Big Lead did that, I think it was practically instant credibility.

By the way, I think Buster Olney's MLB blog is the best thing running on the internet currently. It's like an old Gammons' Boston Globe column five days a week. It's worth the price of ESPN Insider by itself if you're a baseball fan.

 

[cranberry]

It's a good read but Olney's stuff was far better at the NYT where he had good editing, too.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Blogs have taken it upon themselves to be vehicles of mass media criticism. Naturally, that's going to cause some friction.
The fanboy sites are laughable. Leave them be. But there are others that genuinely do present new ways of looking at old data, or events.

 

[Pringle]

Oh, I think it might be more than a passing fad when Joe Sixpack realizes he can draw an audience without putting in four years of college and working his way up the ladder to do it.

Either you're a talented writer or you aren't, so I don't think it matters that a person has a four-year degree, etc.

This is the biggest myth in the literary world. Except for the supremely gifted, and I'm talking one in a million, writing is hard f-ing work. It's a craft, no less than medicine, law or engineering. People, including writers, don't respect that enough. They think that good writing springs from nowhere. It's almost like there's shame in working at it. Think Stevie Ray Vaughn was ashamed that he practiced the guitar?

Good writing takes work. It takes practice. It often requires mentoring.

Can we kill the idea that "Either you're a good writer or you're not." It's lame.

 

[Angola!]

To clarify my earlier posts, since this thread changed direction over night:
I don't have a problem with sports writers having blogs (ie. Gammons, Olney, Stark, bum**** journalist), I also don't have a problem with BLOGGERS! who have established themselves and done good work (ie. Big Lead, Deadspin, etc.), I have a problem with people like Minnesota4Ever complaining about how sportswriters hate BLOGGERS! and then you read his BLOG! and wonder why. It is a bunch of fanboy crap.
Last I checked, someone who wanted to be respected by journalists and considered their brethren do not post entire posts calling the White Sox the Whiney Sux.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I've been doing a blog for my paper for almost two years. When I started, I thought it was the dumbest thing in the world. Now, I think it's great because of the emails I get from readers, about 60 percent are based on something I wrote in the blog and the other 40 percent are from what actually runs in the paper...

That's just the reality in this day and age. We have to do this to keep up...