A couple of weeks ago, I traveled to Las Vegas for the Blogs With Balls convention and had a great time. There was so much that came out of it that was worth writing about, as evidenced by all the great pieces that have showed up in the blogosphere on the conference since then. You can find most of the recap pieces linked at the official conference site here, and you can also look at parts I, II and III of my series if you're interested. I've been working on a final piece from there since then, but haven't had time to put it up yet, and in some ways, that's probably good, as it gave me time to reflect on it. This is the last official part of the Feat, Loathing and Blogs series, but I'll certainly be touching on some of the panelists' remarks and some of the things that came out of the conference more briefly in future posts as well. This series isn't just about conference recaps, but rather where the sports blogosphere may be going, so I hope it's still relevant. As always, leave feedback below or get in touch with me via e-mail, Twitter or Facebook.
Perhaps the most important panel of Blogs With Balls 2.0 was the "State of the Union", featuring Jamie Mottram of Yahoo! Sports and Mr. Irrelevant, J.E. Skeets of Ball Don't Lie, A.J. Daulerio of Deadspin and moderated by Spencer Hall of Every Day Should Be Saturday and SB Nation. These four guys are obviously luminaries in the blogosphere, so it was quite interesting to hear their thoughts on its evolution to this point and where it might be going.
Hall got a good laugh when he opened the panel with the line, "I think the state of the union is strong, strong like an adolescent chimpanzee that has just learned it can rip the arms off everything." There's more to that than just a throwaway gag in my mind, though; it isn't such a bad mental picture of what many sports blogs are like these days. Blogs as a whole, but especially the big ones, have an incredible amount of influence considering how new their medium is. The longest-running sports blogs have been in operation for around 15 years, and very few approach that level. Even sites that have been running for a couple years, like this one, are somewhat old by blogosphere standards. By contrast, consider how long it took for newspapers, magazines, radio and television to gain the same levels of relevance and market penetration that blogs have today. What's even more astounding is that the sports blogosphere is still very young and undeveloped compared to, say, the technology blogosphere. There's tons of room for growth, but sports blogs have really managed to do incredible things in their reasonably brief existence so far.
With that power can come consequences, though. George Orwell once wrote that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", and this is often true in life. I don't think there's necessarily a lot of corruption in the sports blogosphere, but there is a lot of power, and the exercise of that power often has some unforeseen side effects. One example is the Jerod Morris/Raul Ibanez controversy I wrote about this summer. Morris wrote a solid piece looking at the unlikely stats Ibanez had put up at an advanced age and the potential explanations for it. He criticized the idea that steroids were clearly responsible, but mentioned that in our era, it's impossible to definitively rule them out. Several mainstream media outlets took a couple of lines from Morris' piece, completely disregarded the context in which they were written and turned it into a full-blown controversy that was used to blame any and all bloggers for being irresponsible. In my mind, Morris didn't do anything wrong, but his case shows the power even less well-known blogs can suddenly find themselves with, and the unforeseen consequences that can follow. There's the old famous quote about not picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, and that's even more the case with blogs; everyone now has unlimited ink, and some of that ink can have an impact on a scale you never imagined before it was spilled.
Another interesting test case that was discussed was Deadspin's coverage of Josh Hamilton doing shots off of scantily-clad women after his supposed repentance. "I do think there is news value in that," Daulerio said. "Everyone else covered it right after we ran it."
Mottram picked that up, mentioning that the very journalistic institutions that often decry blogs are more than happy to pick their stories up and run with them, sometimes at the same time (as happened in both the Hamilton case and the Ibanez case). He said this allows for plausible deniability by mainstream media outlets, as they're not the scumbags digging up the dirt, but just reporting that other people are doing it.
"These stories reverberate on SportsCenter, on Outside the Lines, but it’s pinned on blogs as evildoers," he said.
Daulerio agreed with that line of thought.
"They’re talking about 'Should we be talking about that?', so I don’t see the point," he said.
There was also a significant discussion of if blogs need journalistic standards, and the answer was largely no. Hall said he doesn't see himself as a journalist, and Daulerio said he isn't particularly concerned with journalistic standards.
"I do a lot of things that are journalistically deplorable," he said.*
*This is interesting in light of the recent Deadspin-ESPN controversy, which many have used to criticize Deadspin's supposed lack of standards. I'm working on a longer piece on that as well, so I don't want to get into it too much right now, but I think in some ways, Deadspin is more journalistically inclined than many other blogs.
The problem with this line of conversation, though, is that there isn't really just one set of journalistic standards. The standards of The New York Times and The New York Post are incredibly different, as are those of CNN, Fox News and Entertainment Tonight. This is why it's silly for people to complain about "blogs" or "the blogosphere", as you never hear people just talking about "newspapers" or judging the Times by what the Post prints. In my mind, each site sets their own standards, and they should be judged by what they do, not what the rest of the blogosphere does. The public at large and the mainstream media may not see it that way at the moment, but here's hoping they will with time.
Hall made another interesting point here, saying that "The ghost a lot of bloggers have lingering over them is Hunter S. Thompson." There's a lot of truth to that statement, as anyone who's read Thompson's work will realize; he went out and shook up the journalistic establishment, frequently crossing and readjusting the lines of the day and paving the way for a new breed of writers in the process. He made use of access at times, but at other times disregarded it and went his own way entirely, and he was never afraid to interject opinion into his work. Pretty much all of those statements could also apply to the sports blogosphere, and in my mind, that's probably a good thing in many cases.
I think Skeets made the key point of this part of the discussion, though, saying that certain settings (and the ones involving access in particular) do require certain standards of behaviour. "When you go into the locker room, you have to play by the rules," he said. In my mind, that isn't such a bad idea. There's plenty of room for creativity and gonzo blogging, but access to players and coaches isn't really going to help with most of it, especially in these days where athletes are constantly surrounded by PR officials and trying to stay on message. It will be tough for the bloggers who can work with access effectively to earn respect and trust and do their jobs if access becomes an anything-goes zone. Most bloggers don't need access in my mind, and much of the best blogging can be done without access, but there are some who can work very well within that framework; I'd hate to see them lose their access thanks to someone else disregarding the established standards for that area.
The last crucial element of the panel discussed the merits of generalist sites versus those that are hyper-specific. Obviously, it's tougher to find an audience without a particular topic, but Hall said he thinks it can be done if the writing's good enough and has a unique spin.
"I think there’s room for generalists," he said. "The problem is it can be very voice-dependent."
Dan Shanoff made a point from the floor about the merits of good writing versus good distribution, arguing that many good pieces go unnoticed while less-stellar ones may receive more traffic thanks to plugs from major sites. Hall said he thinks well-done writing will eventually find an audience regardless of subject, though.
"If people are interested in something, they’re going to find it."
Mottram backed this up, saying that the wide horizons of the Internet make it so there's really nothing that's too obscure, too random or too well-covered already any more.
"With anything people are passionate about, there’s an endless glut of want," he said. "It doesn’t matter how much there is. There’s still room for more."
To me, these last comments really caught the theme of the weekend, and they reinforced what I really believe blogging is really all about. I hate the notion that there's one right way to do things or one legitimate path to blogging success; it's a huge world, and there's room for all kinds of different approaches. I'd rather read a wide array of sites with unique perspectives than have the Internet turn into a cookie-cutter approach, and I don't want success to be defined just by who you know or how long you've been blogging for. That's one thing I really enjoyed about Blogs With Balls; it wasn't a set hierarchy of well-known types lording it over us peons, but rather an open discussion and get-together. It seemed more like cooperation than competition, and in my mind, that's the way it should be; we're all in the same boat. There's plenty of room for newcomers and unique and unusual approaches, and for me, the goal at the end of the day is just to produce something I'm happy with. The blogosphere is ever-changing and ever-expanding, but the possibilities seem wide open at the moment. As Daulerio said, "There’s always something better on the horizon that could blow everything out of the water."
Showing posts with label Fear Loathing and Blogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fear Loathing and Blogs. Show all posts
Monday, November 02, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Fear, Loathing and Blogs in Las Vegas, Part III: Access Denied
As part of my ongoing effort to report on the Blogs With Balls convention I've been at for the past few days, I present coverage of the third panel, which dealt with access. This was one of the most interesting panels of the conference for me, as it dealt with a hot topic in the blogging world and one I'm particularly interested in as a journalist/blogger. It was moderated by Dan Levy of the excellent On The DL Podcast, and featured Greg Wyshynski of Yahoo!'s Puck Daddy, one of my favourite blogs, plus Mitch Germann, the vice-president of communications with the San Francisco Sacramento Kings*, John Karalis of the Celtics' blog Red's Army and Patrick Wixted of New Media Strategies (and a former Washington Redskins PR staffer). Here's a shaky cellphone picture of the panel.
*Yes, I know the Kings are in Sacramento. Odd things happen when you try to write posts while sleep-deprived, such as mixing up California cities!
[Left to right: Germann, Wixted, Karalis, Wyshynski, Levy]
There were a lot of interesting ideas expressed at this panel. One of the first ones was Germann's comments about why the Kings have decided to be proactive with blogger access for guys like Tom Ziller of Sactown Royalty and Zach Harper of Talk Hoops and Cowbell Kingdom. "We're starting to see an evolution now where people want to hear from other fans," Germann said. "You want to let them in because bloggers are your brand evangelists."
Germann has a point here. There is a lot of value to promote having a discussion about a team. However, there are a couple of questionable assumptions that could be derived from this quote; first, that bloggers are there to promote the team, and second, that bloggers are fans, not professionals. I don't think Germann would necessarily agree with either of those conclusions, but they could be derived from that quote, and both are problematic. There are some bloggers who are fans of a team first and foremost, and there's nothing wrong with that. Others have a loyalty to the team they cover, but do try to be as objective as possible. There are also some who go with the full traditional complete objectivity the mainstream media regards as necessary; you can argue about if this exists, or if it's a good thing, but there are people who try for it, and I don't think that's necessarily bad either.
Furthermore, being a fan doesn't make you unprofessional, although this is often assumed by many. In my mind, what would be unprofessional is glossing over your team's mistakes, blaming everything on luck or officials and presuming that your guys can do no wrong. Few bloggers I know of act this way, although I'm sure they're are some. By and large, though, people demand a higher standard. Many of the successful bloggers out there admit that there are teams they would like to see win, but that doesn't make them less critical; in fact, sometimes it makes them even harder on their teams. The point is that admitting you'd like a certain team to win doesn't have to make your analysis or perspective any less valid.
Another good point Germann added is that bloggers aren't necessarily all that different from established media types. Sure, there are plenty of bloggers derided for being rumourmongers or guys just looking for odd quotes, but those types exist in the mainstream media too (see Bruce "Malkin To The Kings" Garrioch, who earned that outstanding nickname from Wyshynski himself.) As Germann said, "There's already guys that ask the goofy questions that the players don't like."
Wyshynski picked this up with an interesting segue. There's a widespread notion out there that giving bloggers access will cause them to be less critical, but he isn't sure that's true (and I'm not either). Many beat writers and columnists are often critical of the teams they cover, as are many credentialed bloggers. Now, there is a chance that giving bloggers access will change the nature of their criticism, and I think that can be a good thing. For example, it's easier to call a certain player a douchebag if you don't ever face them in the locker room. If you do face them in the locker room, you're more likely to say something milder, like "Player X was inconsistent tonight", or "Player Y struggled on offence." That kind of writing can be just as critical and insightful, though.
To me, it's much better to use those kind of terms in the first place, regardless of if you have access. Sports dialogue and opinion can get the same point across in a civilized manner that it can in an invective-laden rant, and in my mind at least, personal insults have no place in sports journalism. Going four for 13 from the field doesn't make Player X a douchebag; it does mean that he had a bad night.
One of the other points Wyshynski made was that access should be granted widely, not sparingly. "I think everyone who wants access should have access," he said. He also went away from the often-used and ill-conceived standard of pageviews, saying, "You have to be judged on the content of your content. I don't think traffic should be the standard." He added that it's unfair to judge bloggers by the lowest common denominator, as traditional media aren't judged that way. "That's like putting the Jay Mariotti standard on all bloggers," he said.
All of those are great points. In my mind, every blogger who wants access and can show that they won't abuse access should be granted it. If that helps move the discussion on their blogs into more civilized realms, that's a nice byproduct. Not every blog needs access, and there are plenty of great insightful bloggers who never go near a locker room. Access can be a great benefit for blogs, though, and it can enable bloggers to get a fuller understanding of what goes into certain tactical decisions and certain players' decisions on the field. It's easy to say that punting on fourth-and-two is a stupid move, but it's more effective to present that argument alongside the coach's rationale for doing so.
Traffic is also a horrible standard for if a blog should be allowed access. In my experience, many of the more interesting blogs on the Internet are the ones with lower page views; they often present more unconventional opinions and unusual analysis. Moreover, many of the higher-traffic blogs owe many of those hits to pictures they post of attractive women; there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that (although I choose not to do it here), but it doesn't really reflect on the state of your writing or your analysis, and it doesn't say anything about what you'd do with access. As Wyshynski also pointed out, you can't just judge all bloggers by their medium; no other journalists are judged that way. The New York Times isn't seen the same way as The New York Post, so why should that standard be applied across the blogosphere?
As previously mentioned, not every blog needs access, and that's a point Karalis reinforced throughout the panel. He also added that access can provide that pressure to be more favourable to the team you're covering, even if you don't necessarily bend to it. "It's a test of your character when you get that access," he said.
In the long run, I think access can be very beneficial for many blogs, and I'd love to see more leagues and teams offering it. That doesn't mean everyone has to have it, and a lot of the more humour-based blogs may actually be better off without access. Still, for those trying to offer a serious, analytical take on a team or a sport, access can be very valuable. Hopefully, more leagues and teams will see the benefits of granting expanded access to bloggers, and the blogosphere will continue to evolve in a positive direction.
*Yes, I know the Kings are in Sacramento. Odd things happen when you try to write posts while sleep-deprived, such as mixing up California cities!
There were a lot of interesting ideas expressed at this panel. One of the first ones was Germann's comments about why the Kings have decided to be proactive with blogger access for guys like Tom Ziller of Sactown Royalty and Zach Harper of Talk Hoops and Cowbell Kingdom. "We're starting to see an evolution now where people want to hear from other fans," Germann said. "You want to let them in because bloggers are your brand evangelists."
Germann has a point here. There is a lot of value to promote having a discussion about a team. However, there are a couple of questionable assumptions that could be derived from this quote; first, that bloggers are there to promote the team, and second, that bloggers are fans, not professionals. I don't think Germann would necessarily agree with either of those conclusions, but they could be derived from that quote, and both are problematic. There are some bloggers who are fans of a team first and foremost, and there's nothing wrong with that. Others have a loyalty to the team they cover, but do try to be as objective as possible. There are also some who go with the full traditional complete objectivity the mainstream media regards as necessary; you can argue about if this exists, or if it's a good thing, but there are people who try for it, and I don't think that's necessarily bad either.
Furthermore, being a fan doesn't make you unprofessional, although this is often assumed by many. In my mind, what would be unprofessional is glossing over your team's mistakes, blaming everything on luck or officials and presuming that your guys can do no wrong. Few bloggers I know of act this way, although I'm sure they're are some. By and large, though, people demand a higher standard. Many of the successful bloggers out there admit that there are teams they would like to see win, but that doesn't make them less critical; in fact, sometimes it makes them even harder on their teams. The point is that admitting you'd like a certain team to win doesn't have to make your analysis or perspective any less valid.
Another good point Germann added is that bloggers aren't necessarily all that different from established media types. Sure, there are plenty of bloggers derided for being rumourmongers or guys just looking for odd quotes, but those types exist in the mainstream media too (see Bruce "Malkin To The Kings" Garrioch, who earned that outstanding nickname from Wyshynski himself.) As Germann said, "There's already guys that ask the goofy questions that the players don't like."
Wyshynski picked this up with an interesting segue. There's a widespread notion out there that giving bloggers access will cause them to be less critical, but he isn't sure that's true (and I'm not either). Many beat writers and columnists are often critical of the teams they cover, as are many credentialed bloggers. Now, there is a chance that giving bloggers access will change the nature of their criticism, and I think that can be a good thing. For example, it's easier to call a certain player a douchebag if you don't ever face them in the locker room. If you do face them in the locker room, you're more likely to say something milder, like "Player X was inconsistent tonight", or "Player Y struggled on offence." That kind of writing can be just as critical and insightful, though.
To me, it's much better to use those kind of terms in the first place, regardless of if you have access. Sports dialogue and opinion can get the same point across in a civilized manner that it can in an invective-laden rant, and in my mind at least, personal insults have no place in sports journalism. Going four for 13 from the field doesn't make Player X a douchebag; it does mean that he had a bad night.
One of the other points Wyshynski made was that access should be granted widely, not sparingly. "I think everyone who wants access should have access," he said. He also went away from the often-used and ill-conceived standard of pageviews, saying, "You have to be judged on the content of your content. I don't think traffic should be the standard." He added that it's unfair to judge bloggers by the lowest common denominator, as traditional media aren't judged that way. "That's like putting the Jay Mariotti standard on all bloggers," he said.
All of those are great points. In my mind, every blogger who wants access and can show that they won't abuse access should be granted it. If that helps move the discussion on their blogs into more civilized realms, that's a nice byproduct. Not every blog needs access, and there are plenty of great insightful bloggers who never go near a locker room. Access can be a great benefit for blogs, though, and it can enable bloggers to get a fuller understanding of what goes into certain tactical decisions and certain players' decisions on the field. It's easy to say that punting on fourth-and-two is a stupid move, but it's more effective to present that argument alongside the coach's rationale for doing so.
Traffic is also a horrible standard for if a blog should be allowed access. In my experience, many of the more interesting blogs on the Internet are the ones with lower page views; they often present more unconventional opinions and unusual analysis. Moreover, many of the higher-traffic blogs owe many of those hits to pictures they post of attractive women; there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that (although I choose not to do it here), but it doesn't really reflect on the state of your writing or your analysis, and it doesn't say anything about what you'd do with access. As Wyshynski also pointed out, you can't just judge all bloggers by their medium; no other journalists are judged that way. The New York Times isn't seen the same way as The New York Post, so why should that standard be applied across the blogosphere?
As previously mentioned, not every blog needs access, and that's a point Karalis reinforced throughout the panel. He also added that access can provide that pressure to be more favourable to the team you're covering, even if you don't necessarily bend to it. "It's a test of your character when you get that access," he said.
In the long run, I think access can be very beneficial for many blogs, and I'd love to see more leagues and teams offering it. That doesn't mean everyone has to have it, and a lot of the more humour-based blogs may actually be better off without access. Still, for those trying to offer a serious, analytical take on a team or a sport, access can be very valuable. Hopefully, more leagues and teams will see the benefits of granting expanded access to bloggers, and the blogosphere will continue to evolve in a positive direction.
Fear, Loathing and Blogs in Las Vegas, Part II: Back to the Future
In the first panel of the Blogs With Balls: Las Vegas conference, the focus was on athletes and their attempts to connect directly with fans. The second panel took up the rather broad topic of "The Future of Sports Media", but produced some really interesting discussions. It was moderated by Dan Shanoff of The Sporting Blog, Tim Teblog and DanShanoff.com. The panelists were Nathaniel Friedman (better known as Bethlehem Shoals) of The Sporting Blog, The Baseline and Free Darko, Matt Ufford of Kissing Suzy Kolber, With Leather and Warming Glow, Kevin Blackistone of FanHouse, Around the Horn and the University of Maryland, and Amy K. Nelson of ESPN.com.
It was a solid, diverse group. Friedman and Ufford both started off as small, independent bloggers (as did Shanoff to a degree, but he wound up with ESPN pretty quickly) who then made it big, while Blackistone's a former newspaper guy who's made the jump to the web, but is possibly most famous for his TV stints on Around the Horn and Nelson's familiar with the web side, but from the inside of a big sports conglomerate. Their different perspectives really facilitated the discussion, as this wouldn't have been anywhere as interesting with panelists from only one area of expertise.
Blackistone had some of the most interesting comments of the day. Early on, he stated that "I’ve been newspaper free now for three years, and I’m learning to live with it." Yet, it's clear that he still retains much of the big newspaper perspective; he sees his posts for FanHouse more as columns than blog posts (which is fine) and doesn't see the point in responding to feedback (which is more troubling). When Shanoff asked Blackistone if he connected with fans, he said, "I do not. I present my opinion and I allow other people to present their opinions." That's very much the old-school columnist mentality, and it isn't necessarily problematic; a writer of Blackistone's stature is still going to draw plenty of traffic regardless of if he answers e-mails and comments or not. However, it does suggest that he may be locked in to his view of the world. It's tough to consistently deliver well-written, nuanced pieces without ever listening to what others have to say.
I'm not one of the people who demands that columnists should be in touch with their audience and write what people want to read; to me, that's a bit of a cop-out. There's nothing wrong with taking a different tack and writing something you know will be controversial; in fact, that has produced some of the best journalism. It bothers me if you deliberately exaggerate your opinions to be more black-and-white and more provocative, the way Blackistone's FanHouse colleague Jay Mariotti often does, but you don't have to write what you think people want to read, or accept their suggestions on what they'd like to see from you. However, I do think it is valuable to at least look at those suggestions. It's obviously easier for someone like me who receives a few comments and e-mails than for someone in Blackistone's shoes, who certainly gets massive amounts of feedback, and I'm not arguing that he should take the time to respond to all criticisms. I do think it would benefit him to at least take a look at some of the comments and e-mails, though, and see what people are saying about his work; even if he doesn't agree with their comments or change anything in his writing style as a result, it might still be worthwhile for him to know how people see what he's doing.
In my mind, that interactivity is one of the biggest changes that's come with the web, and one that will be important to the future of the sports media. It doesn't mean that you have to deal with every request or complaint from all your readers, but it is important to at least get an idea of what they like and don't like about your work. Feedback is often a good thing. The other valuable point made during this panel was that if you actively respond to commenters/e-mailers, it tends to civilize the discussion and make it more valuable. Jason Whitlock was cited as an example here; he's a traditional media guy, but he purposefully includes his e-mail address at the bottom of his Fox Sports columns, responds to feedback and often jumps into the comments section. When he does, the comments become more respectful and more valuable. I don't agree with Whitlock on many things, but I applaud him for that stand.
Blackistone is far ahead of Mariotti in several areas, though. For one thing, his arguments tend to be more nuanced and subtle; he tries to persuade you instead of bludgeoning you over the head the way Mariotti does. Blackistone at least makes an attempt to see the shades of grey in sports, which as long-time readers will know, is pretty much the mission statement of this blog. He isn't as much of an absolutist, even if he is on Around The Horn, and just his willingness to speak at a blogging conference shows that he doesn't see himself as far above everyone else as Mariotti and his ilk do. One of his key quotes that showed this was his willingness to be identified as a blogger, something that seems anathema to Mariotti.* "You can call me a general columnist, you can call me a blogger and I’m not offended," he said. "I'm not like some of my colleagues who think that you are vermin." In fact, Blackistone argued that the generalist sports columnist is far from dead, but is merely transitioning from the printed page to the information superhighway, something I thoroughly agree with. "The generalist columnist can exist and write longer than ever before on the web," he said.
*Side note: Blackistone asked how many people read Mariotti regularly, and I didn't see a single hand go up. It's interesting (and a great sign!) that my distaste for him is far from unique among the sports bloggerati.
Ufford had an excellent point, too, arguing that length alone doesn't make a piece good or bad. "People gravitate towards columnists," he said. "You can have quality in 300 words, you can have quality in 5000." This was refreshing to hear. There are far too many bloggers who spend all their time ranting about the length of others' pieces. In my mind, posts should be judged on quality, not on length. You can create something great in a short post or a long post, and there's an audience out there for both.
Freidman reinforced this point with some powerful comments. "There are cases where people do like to read longer columns," he said. "As long as people have brains, they'll want to read things about sports longer than 150 words." I agree with him, as personally, I favour both reading and writing long posts. Short posts can be good, too, and I will do them occasionally, but if you have a short attention span, this probably isn't the site for you.
There was a good discussion on voice as well. Personally, I think it's important for blogs to have a distinctive style and voice. However, there are only a limited number of writing styles out there, though, so voice isn't always purely original and it isn't always purely unique. Nelson made an interesting point on that, suggesting that it may be more important for writers to interact with their audience and connect with other fans than worry about being unique. "I think it’s not more about establishing a voice than establishing that you’re part of a community," she said. In my mind, both are important.
Shanoff also made an interesting point about distribution, arguing that the web isn't a strict meritocracy. He said some writers have more success even if their work isn't as good, thanks to their connections and their ability to get pieces published at or linked to from large sites. He argued that the byline on an article isn't as important as what site it's published on. "You can put it in the firehose and generate a lot of traffic, regardless of if your name is Jason Whitlock or Matt Ufford," he said.
I agree here, to a degree. This follows Malcolm Gladwell's logic in Outliers, where he argues that success is more about circumstances than inherent talent. I wrote a post earlier this summer on how this applies to sportswriting, and tried to make a similar point to the one Shanoff put forward. However, the blogosphere does lower the access barrier to a point where it's much less pronounced; all you need to get your work published now is a computer and an internet connection, and you can do that from a library or Internet cafe if you don't own your own computer. That's much better than the old "start at the bottom" school of journalism, which only allowed a select few to even get that far. There's a great part in Hunter S. Thompson's Gonzo Papers (Part III: Songs of the Doomed: More Reflections on the Death of the American Dream) where he talks about a famous New York paper wanting to hire him to an entry-level job where he wouldn't even be writing at first, despite his well-established credentials. There still isn't a lot of money in blogging, even at the very top, and many bloggers are hired for effectively entry-level jobs despite stellar credentials, but the point is that you can get your work out there regardless of connections. Connections help in building an audience and getting it seen, but I'm a firm believer that good work will eventually rise to the top if you have enough perseverance. Maybe that makes me an incurable optimist, but it's more fun to be that way than to be continuously cynical.
One of the other really good points made during this panel was about competition from unconventional sources. Blackistone said local sites like ESPN Dallas have stepped into voids left by the collapse of some newspapers and increased competition in the process, pushing everyone to greater heights.
"Now with the advent of ESPN Dallas, there’s a talent war going on," he said.
"It actually has invigorated (the Dallas Morning News') SportsDay now to go to battle in a local market, which used to be the case when you had multiple newspapers in a market. ... You’re going to have more competition, more people fighting over stories."
I agree with this one, and I think that it can be true on the web as well. However, in my mind, it's important for bloggers to be collaborative as well as competitive. One of the other sites I run is a Vancouver Canucks blog, Canuck Puck, and I'm certainly challenged by other excellent sites like Nucks Misconduct and Canucks Hockey Blog. I don't really see myself as a competitor to them, though; I try and offer original analysis that complements their coverage, and link to the good work they're doing whenever possible. In my mind, there's plenty of space for everyone on the web.
The other thing that has changed since the advent of the web is the decrease in brand loyalty. It used to be that fans would get all their information on a team from the local newspaper they subscribed to; few could justify the expense of subscribing to multiple papers. However, fans these days can check out coverage from a myriad of sources, including newspapers and blogs. There aren't many people who exclusively get their information from a single source any more. Thus, in my mind, it behooves bloggers to work together whenever possible; we all have something different to bring to the table, and that's a good thing.
It was a solid, diverse group. Friedman and Ufford both started off as small, independent bloggers (as did Shanoff to a degree, but he wound up with ESPN pretty quickly) who then made it big, while Blackistone's a former newspaper guy who's made the jump to the web, but is possibly most famous for his TV stints on Around the Horn and Nelson's familiar with the web side, but from the inside of a big sports conglomerate. Their different perspectives really facilitated the discussion, as this wouldn't have been anywhere as interesting with panelists from only one area of expertise.
Blackistone had some of the most interesting comments of the day. Early on, he stated that "I’ve been newspaper free now for three years, and I’m learning to live with it." Yet, it's clear that he still retains much of the big newspaper perspective; he sees his posts for FanHouse more as columns than blog posts (which is fine) and doesn't see the point in responding to feedback (which is more troubling). When Shanoff asked Blackistone if he connected with fans, he said, "I do not. I present my opinion and I allow other people to present their opinions." That's very much the old-school columnist mentality, and it isn't necessarily problematic; a writer of Blackistone's stature is still going to draw plenty of traffic regardless of if he answers e-mails and comments or not. However, it does suggest that he may be locked in to his view of the world. It's tough to consistently deliver well-written, nuanced pieces without ever listening to what others have to say.
I'm not one of the people who demands that columnists should be in touch with their audience and write what people want to read; to me, that's a bit of a cop-out. There's nothing wrong with taking a different tack and writing something you know will be controversial; in fact, that has produced some of the best journalism. It bothers me if you deliberately exaggerate your opinions to be more black-and-white and more provocative, the way Blackistone's FanHouse colleague Jay Mariotti often does, but you don't have to write what you think people want to read, or accept their suggestions on what they'd like to see from you. However, I do think it is valuable to at least look at those suggestions. It's obviously easier for someone like me who receives a few comments and e-mails than for someone in Blackistone's shoes, who certainly gets massive amounts of feedback, and I'm not arguing that he should take the time to respond to all criticisms. I do think it would benefit him to at least take a look at some of the comments and e-mails, though, and see what people are saying about his work; even if he doesn't agree with their comments or change anything in his writing style as a result, it might still be worthwhile for him to know how people see what he's doing.
In my mind, that interactivity is one of the biggest changes that's come with the web, and one that will be important to the future of the sports media. It doesn't mean that you have to deal with every request or complaint from all your readers, but it is important to at least get an idea of what they like and don't like about your work. Feedback is often a good thing. The other valuable point made during this panel was that if you actively respond to commenters/e-mailers, it tends to civilize the discussion and make it more valuable. Jason Whitlock was cited as an example here; he's a traditional media guy, but he purposefully includes his e-mail address at the bottom of his Fox Sports columns, responds to feedback and often jumps into the comments section. When he does, the comments become more respectful and more valuable. I don't agree with Whitlock on many things, but I applaud him for that stand.
Blackistone is far ahead of Mariotti in several areas, though. For one thing, his arguments tend to be more nuanced and subtle; he tries to persuade you instead of bludgeoning you over the head the way Mariotti does. Blackistone at least makes an attempt to see the shades of grey in sports, which as long-time readers will know, is pretty much the mission statement of this blog. He isn't as much of an absolutist, even if he is on Around The Horn, and just his willingness to speak at a blogging conference shows that he doesn't see himself as far above everyone else as Mariotti and his ilk do. One of his key quotes that showed this was his willingness to be identified as a blogger, something that seems anathema to Mariotti.* "You can call me a general columnist, you can call me a blogger and I’m not offended," he said. "I'm not like some of my colleagues who think that you are vermin." In fact, Blackistone argued that the generalist sports columnist is far from dead, but is merely transitioning from the printed page to the information superhighway, something I thoroughly agree with. "The generalist columnist can exist and write longer than ever before on the web," he said.
*Side note: Blackistone asked how many people read Mariotti regularly, and I didn't see a single hand go up. It's interesting (and a great sign!) that my distaste for him is far from unique among the sports bloggerati.
Ufford had an excellent point, too, arguing that length alone doesn't make a piece good or bad. "People gravitate towards columnists," he said. "You can have quality in 300 words, you can have quality in 5000." This was refreshing to hear. There are far too many bloggers who spend all their time ranting about the length of others' pieces. In my mind, posts should be judged on quality, not on length. You can create something great in a short post or a long post, and there's an audience out there for both.
Freidman reinforced this point with some powerful comments. "There are cases where people do like to read longer columns," he said. "As long as people have brains, they'll want to read things about sports longer than 150 words." I agree with him, as personally, I favour both reading and writing long posts. Short posts can be good, too, and I will do them occasionally, but if you have a short attention span, this probably isn't the site for you.
There was a good discussion on voice as well. Personally, I think it's important for blogs to have a distinctive style and voice. However, there are only a limited number of writing styles out there, though, so voice isn't always purely original and it isn't always purely unique. Nelson made an interesting point on that, suggesting that it may be more important for writers to interact with their audience and connect with other fans than worry about being unique. "I think it’s not more about establishing a voice than establishing that you’re part of a community," she said. In my mind, both are important.
Shanoff also made an interesting point about distribution, arguing that the web isn't a strict meritocracy. He said some writers have more success even if their work isn't as good, thanks to their connections and their ability to get pieces published at or linked to from large sites. He argued that the byline on an article isn't as important as what site it's published on. "You can put it in the firehose and generate a lot of traffic, regardless of if your name is Jason Whitlock or Matt Ufford," he said.
I agree here, to a degree. This follows Malcolm Gladwell's logic in Outliers, where he argues that success is more about circumstances than inherent talent. I wrote a post earlier this summer on how this applies to sportswriting, and tried to make a similar point to the one Shanoff put forward. However, the blogosphere does lower the access barrier to a point where it's much less pronounced; all you need to get your work published now is a computer and an internet connection, and you can do that from a library or Internet cafe if you don't own your own computer. That's much better than the old "start at the bottom" school of journalism, which only allowed a select few to even get that far. There's a great part in Hunter S. Thompson's Gonzo Papers (Part III: Songs of the Doomed: More Reflections on the Death of the American Dream) where he talks about a famous New York paper wanting to hire him to an entry-level job where he wouldn't even be writing at first, despite his well-established credentials. There still isn't a lot of money in blogging, even at the very top, and many bloggers are hired for effectively entry-level jobs despite stellar credentials, but the point is that you can get your work out there regardless of connections. Connections help in building an audience and getting it seen, but I'm a firm believer that good work will eventually rise to the top if you have enough perseverance. Maybe that makes me an incurable optimist, but it's more fun to be that way than to be continuously cynical.
One of the other really good points made during this panel was about competition from unconventional sources. Blackistone said local sites like ESPN Dallas have stepped into voids left by the collapse of some newspapers and increased competition in the process, pushing everyone to greater heights.
"Now with the advent of ESPN Dallas, there’s a talent war going on," he said.
"It actually has invigorated (the Dallas Morning News') SportsDay now to go to battle in a local market, which used to be the case when you had multiple newspapers in a market. ... You’re going to have more competition, more people fighting over stories."
I agree with this one, and I think that it can be true on the web as well. However, in my mind, it's important for bloggers to be collaborative as well as competitive. One of the other sites I run is a Vancouver Canucks blog, Canuck Puck, and I'm certainly challenged by other excellent sites like Nucks Misconduct and Canucks Hockey Blog. I don't really see myself as a competitor to them, though; I try and offer original analysis that complements their coverage, and link to the good work they're doing whenever possible. In my mind, there's plenty of space for everyone on the web.
The other thing that has changed since the advent of the web is the decrease in brand loyalty. It used to be that fans would get all their information on a team from the local newspaper they subscribed to; few could justify the expense of subscribing to multiple papers. However, fans these days can check out coverage from a myriad of sources, including newspapers and blogs. There aren't many people who exclusively get their information from a single source any more. Thus, in my mind, it behooves bloggers to work together whenever possible; we all have something different to bring to the table, and that's a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
