How sports coverage is changing

[adam & doctor drew]

I know it's not really about TV but I found this (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63034) pretty interesting.

[Another side]

Great article. I read every word.

And while the words don't include "TV sports" the message is there, and it's not a good one.

Thanks for posting it.

[John M.]

That was an inspirational read, as was a related article (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63074) also by the Sports Business Journal.

I think they partly explain why the NFL has tried to hard to get its network on basic cable plans. It wants casual fans to stumble across it rather than it to be available only to die-hards who will pay for the sports-tier packages. Not everyone shows up to games with painted faces and the latest jersey. It's the less serious sports fans who help fill the seats -- the ones that don't go to teams' web sites for news but who get it from the local paper or TV sportscast.

Of particular interest to me was that leagues are now admitting bloggers and web site operators into their press rows as legitimately credentialed media. I've believed for a while now that the term "enterprising reporter" will come to mean more than one thing. Increases in web video quality plus decreases in prices of broadcast quality video cameras make it possible for someone to start his (or her) own local sports site.

If a site like this, previously denied access that traditional media enjoyed, can get credentialed, it could essentially build its own local sports channel.

[Jane Craig]

Interesting article -- and analogous things are going on in terms of news coverage. Anything that costs money (i.e., travel/dedicating a reporter to a narrow beat) is being scrutinized and likely trimmed, and in some cases gutted.

[SamG]

I started reading the article and what I got is a "woe is me" from the sports teams who aren't getting the coverage they think they deserve.

Does sending a reporter on the road with the team "pay off" for the paper/tv station? Heck, does it even come close to breaking even? It's a business decision.

Are subscribers dropping because the coverage has slackened off? In enough numbers to justify putting the coverage back in?

[adam & doctor drew]

for years, papers have been sending columnists to major events for no apparent reason, other than that they could.

that ending, to me, is no big deal.
what is a columnist from the Denver Post or Miami Herald really going to unearth at Wimbledon or even the World Series if the local team isn't in it?

beat reporters not traveling with the team is a much bigger deal.
it'll make it easier than ever for teams to hide so-called "negative" news from the fans.

I don't buy for a second that we'll get the real story from a team's website.
(though I do read Sam Smith all the time on Bulls.com)

[SamG]

what is a columnist from the Denver Post or Miami Herald really going to unearth at Wimbledon or even the World Series if the local team isn't in it?what is a columnist from the Denver Post really going to unearth by following the Rockies on their road games?


beat reporters not traveling with the team is a much bigger deal.
it'll make it easier than ever for teams to hide so-called "negative" news from the fans.

I don't buy for a second that we'll get the real story from a team's website.
I agree you won't get negative stories from a team's website. Again management has a business decision to make. Does the POSSIBILITY of finding a "negative" news story justify the $35-$50K worth of travel expenses?

[adam & doctor drew]

what is a columnist from the Denver Post really going to unearth by following the Rockies on their road games?


a million things.... guy working at a new position, guy trying a new batting stance, pitcher working on a new pitch, injury updates, who's playing vs who's not and why, who's being sent down/called up and why, who's mad at the manager, who's mad about his contract, who wants to be traded, etc.

those are all things you get by being there every day and developing relationships.
and on the road, that's easier to do because there are less media people around, and the players/coaches have more free time because family's not around.
if you just show up for the home games, you get what everyone else gets.

[Consider This]

I started reading the article and what I got is a "woe is me" from the sports teams who aren't getting the coverage they think they deserve.

That is unfortunate because the issue is a lot more complex than that. Because the publisher deals with sports business and not media business, it didn't address the ways that media have also depended on sports teams to draw interest in their products. (Do no TV stations in Lexington tout their coverage of the University of Kentucky?)

Even from the sports teams' angle, the article was not a complaint about lack of "deserved" coverage. It concerned the reality of how to connect with fans -- and, more important, potential fans -- now that one of the primary means of doing so is not a reliable as it once was.

A thorough read would reveal some of the potential implications and possibilities for those who cover sports for a living.

[Randy Steinman]

Two comments jumped off the page at me:

"Opening the press box to bloggers has become common practice now that the traditional media corps no longer fills its allotted spaces."

"In its nine years, MLB.com has thrown lifelines to ink-stained wretches from coast to coast. There are now a dozen MLB Web writers who hold Hall of Fame votes."

1) How are pro sports teams deciding which bloggers have any real value? Do the bloggers have to supply proof of their web traffic? What a nightmare this must be for the PR guys who have to issue credentials.

2) I can only imagine some of the bad blood this has created between fancy-schmancy Press Box 'bloggers' and the crusty, old-school reporters who are still hanging around from the 1960's and 70's. Some of those guys have been angry their entire lives.
And there's something bothersome about writers who now work for teams/MLB who hold HOF voting privileges.

[The Thrill]

You don't travel for VO, you travel for the SOTs. Postgame interviews of your local team on the road are something the nets probably won't have on the feeds for you, and you can run that sound for a couple of days.

If you ain't got it, and your competition does, you're screwed.

[Another side]

for years, papers have been sending columnists to major events for no apparent reason, other than that they could.

that ending, to me, is no big deal.
what is a columnist from the Denver Post or Miami Herald really going to unearth at Wimbledon or even the World Series if the local team isn't in it?


A columnist's primary responsibility is to draw readership; a reporter's primary responsibilty is to provide coverage and hope the coverage draws readership.

It's not that they "unearth" anything new; it's that the paper can continue to providfe a segment of its readers with a voiice and name the recognize and read.

Columnists are often the highest-paid writers on the editorial side, and are often targets of the "competition" -- at your example, The Denver Post, Woody Paige went back and forth between the the Rockie and Denver Post. It's best columnist ever (in my book) was Dick Conner ... who was also taken from the Denver Post by the Rocky Mountain News and back again (I think.)

I read ESPN.com because of Bill Simmons -- a sports columnist. And Rick Reilly, who had what I always considered the best job in sports column -writing (the final page on Sports Illustrated) was bought away from SI for millions ... because he can attract readership.

Columnists matter ... a lot.

[adam & doctor drew]

respectfully, Simmons and Reilly are on a different planet than Woody Paige.

and my point was, the LOCAL columnist at at NATIONAL event adds very little.
if the Yankees and Marlins are playing in the World Series, are people in Cleveland or Phoenix or Seattle rushing to the paper because the local columnist is there, regurgitating the same old s--- as everyone else?
I doubt it.

or are people in the local city NOT buying the paper because the local columnist isn't at Wimbledon or the Masters or Daytona?
again, I doubt it.

I presume columnists were sent on those trips as a way for the bosses to keep them happy and make the columnists feel like big shots.
and now that the money's drying up, those trips should be the first thing to go.

[s'news]

I just wanted to chime in here that I'm currently reading The Best American Sports Writing, 2008. Mrs. s'news buys the book for me each year and has since the series started more than a decade ago.

It's great reading. Reilly's usually in there somewhere.

[Desert Rat]

That was an inspirational read, as was a related article (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63074) also by the Sports Business Journal.

I think they partly explain why the NFL has tried to hard to get its network on basic cable plans. It wants casual fans to stumble across it rather than it to be available only to die-hards who will pay for the sports-tier packages. Not everyone shows up to games with painted faces and the latest jersey. It's the less serious sports fans who help fill the seats -- the ones that don't go to teams' web sites for news but who get it from the local paper or TV sportscast.

Of particular interest to me was that leagues are now admitting bloggers and web site operators into their press rows as legitimately credentialed media. I've believed for a while now that the term "enterprising reporter" will come to mean more than one thing. Increases in web video quality plus decreases in prices of broadcast quality video cameras make it possible for someone to start his (or her) own local sports site.

If a site like this, previously denied access that traditional media enjoyed, can get credentialed, it could essentially build its own local sports channel.

It also wants it on the basic tier so more eyes can watch its programming, therefore getting more money for advertising.

[Desert Rat]

I happened to be channel surfing yesterday and I stopped on Cramer's Mad Money....

He had the CEO for internet content for MLB on.

Apparently MLB now has the capability to send games live to your IPhone or other such mobile internet device if you have a subscription.....sounds like a pretty good idea.

Be interesting if the NFL takes the same action

[SamG]

That is unfortunate because the issue is a lot more complex than that. Because the publisher deals with sports business and not media business, it didn't address the ways that media have also depended on sports teams to draw interest in their products. (Do no TV stations in Lexington tout their coverage of the University of Kentucky?)The station that has the game rights promotes that. But I don't even know that they send a crew to all the road games.


A thorough read would reveal some of the potential implications and possibilities for those who cover sports for a living.Ahhh, now we get to the heart of the matter. It's the sports REPORTERS/COLUMNISTS that are affected/worried. So let's ask those who cover sports what should be cut from the budget to make up that $100 grand to be able to send them with the team? Cut equipment maintenance? Salaries? People? Companies across the country (not just in TV) are trying to make do with less, and trying to justify every cost. IMHO, cutting travel to road trip games is a good place to cut.

I want to agree with Thrill about going to get the post game SOTs. But keep in mind, for the major college & pro sports, the host market will have a crew in place and will often have a crew able to shoot some sound to send back for the visiting team.

[Consider This]

The station that has the game rights promotes that. But I don't even know that they send a crew to all the road games.

Hold on. Only one station in Lexington mentions its coverage of the Wildcats? Only the station that carries the games? No one else has "Wild About the Cats" coverage or "True Blue" coverage in that market?

The point isn't whether they cover all the road games. I'm sure they don't. The point is that they use the University's sports teams' popularity as a way to draw viewers.

Ahhh, now we get to the heart of the matter. It's the sports REPORTERS/COLUMNISTS that are affected/worried.

Most sports-related travel has already been cut. And I don't disagree with that.

The heart of the matter to me -- and, again, you had to read carefully and draw a conclusion yourself to get to it -- is that bloggers and website reporters are now considered legitimate media by some major league sports teams.

That is huge. If website and blog owners are going to get the same access to the teams that traditional media get, those newspapers and TV stations suddenly have a lot more competition.

Laugh if you want. A blogger named Mike Florio started a site called profootballtalk.com. It became such a must-read that the NFL became a sponsor and then this summer NBC bought the site. The one-time part-time blogger quit his day job and now draws a check from NBC. Why? Because basically all by himself he created something that NBC (nor any network, actually) had no match for.

[adam & doctor drew]

The heart of the matter to me -- and, again, you had to read carefully and draw a conclusion yourself to get it to it -- is that bloggers and website reporters are now considered legitimate media by some major league sports teams.


I'm not sure they're considered "legitimate" as much as they are "available."

if papers are cutting back on coverage, and a blogger wants to get himself to the game, the team will then credential (and embrace) said blogger.
they wouldn't be doing that if the press box was full.

[Consider This]

I'm not sure they're considered "legitimate" as much as they are "available."

However it happens, it's happening.

And the press box isn't like the stands. Teams don't need seat fillers to make the atmosphere better. Teams are only going to give people credentials whom they think will reach an audience with their coverage. That's the sea change. Professional sports teams now believe that alternative media may help them reach their audience the way newspapers once did but do less now.

[adam & doctor drew]

Teams don't need seat fillers to make the atmosphere better. Teams are only going to give people credentials whom they think will reach an audience with their coverage.

not necessarily.
if you have 15 empty seats in your press box, you're assured of getting zero coverage.
you put 15 bloggers in those seats, you at least get something.
and it costs the team nothing to credential those bloggers.

[RoyMcAvoy]

As an ex-sports guy...

I never understood, when I was covering the NCAA men's basketball tournaments/Final Fours/NBA Playoffs/AFC or NFC Title games, what in the world a columnist from a market 1000 miles from either of the teams playing -- and with no tangible local angles - could really add to the coverage. Especially when I would see this newspaper columnist getting a seat in the actual venue -- while those of us who had covered one of the teams for the season -- went relegated to a tent where we're watching it all on TV.

Kick 'em out, I say...

[Another side]

and my point was, the LOCAL columnist at at NATIONAL event adds very little.

In your opinion. Fans of these columnists don't agree.

I presume columnists were sent on those trips as a way for the bosses to keep them happy and make the columnists feel like big shots.


OK. Have it your way.

[SamG]

The point isn't whether they cover all the road games. I'm sure they don't. The point is that they use the University's sports teams' popularity as a way to draw viewers.Of course they do. But the article in question was lamenting about media's sports budget being cut.


The heart of the matter to me -- and, again, you had to read carefully and draw a conclusion yourself to get to it -- is that bloggers and website reporters are now considered legitimate media by some major league sports teams.

That is huge. If website and blog owners are going to get the same access to the teams that traditional media get, those newspapers and TV stations suddenly have a lot more competition.And I'm sure if the newspapers and TV stations feel they are losing viewers/subscribers BECAUSE of the blogger competition they'll "step up". Until that happens, save the $$. Again, if the choice is between cutting a $100K travel budget or finding other places to cut, it's a no brainer (to me).

[jrat33]

respectfully, Simmons and Reilly are on a different planet than Woody Paige.

.

I TOTALLY agree. In fact, I dare say that Simmons is probably the most entertaining columnist in America right now. I probably laugh out loud six or seven times while reading his column.

Of course, he appeals to me mostly because he's a Sox, Patriots, Celtics and Bruins fan like I am.

[Consider This]

Of course they do. But the article in question was lamenting about media's sports budget being cut.

But your comment addressed something I added later about how the media also benefited from covering sports teams.

And I'm sure if the newspapers and TV stations feel they are losing viewers/subscribers BECAUSE of the blogger competition they'll "step up".

Actually, they won't. They can't. They have already lost viewers and subscribers that they can't get back. It doesn't matter what the cause was. That $100K travel budget (just using your figure) is gone and it's not coming back. Bloggers and other new media outlets don't have to be the cause. They merely benefit by stepping through the door left open by the absence of traditional media.

[Consider This]

not necessarily.
if you have 15 empty seats in your press box, you're assured of getting zero coverage.
you put 15 bloggers in those seats, you at least get something.
and it costs the team nothing to credential those bloggers.

First, if you have ONLY bloggers covering you, it doesn't matter. You're sunk anyway. At least right now. Maybe it will change in the next decade.

Second, it can certainly cost the team if it credentials someone who becomes an autograph hound or otherwise behaves unprofessionally when he's supposed to be doing post-game interviews.

Or who later embarrasses the team because his blog is "thisteamstinks.com" or turns out to have been involved in something sleazy that later sparks a story about how "so-and-so had a media credential to cover the team even though his primary media experience was his career as a gay porn star."

So I think there is a cost. And that's why teams will still wade cautiously into the new media waters when deciding whom to credential.

[adam & doctor drew]

it can certainly cost the team if it credentials someone who becomes an autograph hound or otherwise behaves unprofessionally when he's supposed to be doing post-game interviews.

you mean like this? (http://deadspin.com/5312951/oddly-enough-married-athletes-are-still-foolin-around)

[Another side]

you mean like this? (http://deadspin.com/5312951/oddly-enough-married-athletes-are-still-foolin-around)

I'm confused. How does that relate? Are you talking about the intern or the Deadspin writer or the Chronicle writer?

[adam & doctor drew]

the intern was there representing an allegedly "mainstream" media outlet (in other words, not a blogger) and I think the argument can be made she also behaved unprofessionally.