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.

On the Ground: Seth Kolloen

Photo: Seth Kolloen, the executive editor of Sports Northwest Magazine and founder and sole proprietor of Enjoy The Enjoyment. [Photo from Enjoy The Enjoyment].

One of the rules of journalism in general is that you get a better story if you're at the event instead of writing about it from afar. That's why large papers have bureaus all over the world, and also why they have beat reporters travel with teams instead of watching the games on TV and writing about them from home. I've found this to be true with my own writing at the Journal: when I've taken road trips with teams, I can usually come up with something much more interesting than if I just phone the coach afterwards and ask questions based on the game summary.

As with any rule, this has exceptions: Will Leitch made a very nice career out of not going to events over at Deadspin, and I'm sure his successors A.J. and Rick will keep that trend largely alive. It's quite possible to do great things without personal coverage, but still, on the whole, I think there's a fair bit to be said for being there in person. That's why I decided to get up at 3 a.m. and make the long drive down to to Seattle the other week for the opening day of the Sonics trial and the rally that followed: I could have just written my column from afar, but I think I got a much better understanding of the issues around the proposed relocation from spending a day studying it up close and personal.

Unfortunately, the demands of regular work meant I had to follow the rest of the trial from B.C., but I was still able to keep up with it, thanks to the excellent coverage from local media sources like the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Still, I'm sure I would have been able to cover it even better if I had the time to be there all week.

However, there is another alternative to get a better sense of these situations: talking to those who are there. In this particular case, most of the local media types there probably have a far better understanding of the details than myself, as they've been there as the situation's developed. In general, though, talking with other journalists can reveal a lot more about a situation than just what they can fit in their stories or pieces: I know from my own experience in the media that much of the best stuff often gets cut due to space, angle or other concerns. Ever wonder why so many print journalists get invited onto radio or TV shows to discuss specific issues (not just in sports, but in every type of media coverage)? I'd venture that the primary reason isn't usually because of their looks or the sound of their voice: it's because it's their job to be well-informed, and thus, they often have interesting things to say.

That's why I'm kicking off a new and hopefully recurring feature on this blog, entitled "On the Ground." I'm hoping to run it whenever there's a city-specific issue I'm writing about to compare local perspectives with my own detached one. The idea is to get in touch with local types (usually from some form of the media, but not always) who have detailed knowledge of what's going on, grill them with a bunch of questions and post the questions and answers here. If you're interested in being featured in this segment in the future, drop me a line .

We'll start things off with the Sonics trial. Judge Marsha Pechman is set to hand down her verdict later this afternoon, so to lead up to that, I present the first series of "On the Ground" interviews with Seattle types, all of whom I asked the same set of questions. First up: Seth Kolloen, of the excellent Sports Northwest Magazine and Enjoy the Enjoyment. My questions and his unedited answers are below. There's a lot of great stuff from him in there.


Q: What's the mood like in Seattle? Do people still feel there's a chance to keep the franchise, or are they resigned to losing it?

A: Casual fans pretty much assume the team is gone. There's a small cadre of dedicated fans, led by the amazingly effective Brian Robinson and Steven Pyeatt at SonicsCentral.com/Save Our Sonics, who are closely following the case and holding out hope that one of these court cases will prove out.

Q: Do you think the rallies and popular expressions of support will make any difference in the end?

A: Depends on what you mean by "the end." The rallies definitely forced local politicians to try to hold the team to their lease--the last thing politicians want is a highly organized, motivated, angry group against them. Save Our Sonics threatened to disrupt our incumbent governor's reelection kickoff, so she met with them the day before to get on their good side. So if the city wins the court case, and the team stays for two more years, it will have been the fans who did that...if that forces Bennett to sell, you can thank the fans. But, more than likely, whether the Sonics stay hinges on Howard Schultz' seeming longshot case to force the team to stay, and the outcome there won't have anything to do with the fans.

Q: What do you think was the city's strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: For their case, it's simply the language of the lease. The lease clearly spells out that "specific performance" is required--meaning that the team isn't supposed to be able to get out of the lease with any kind of cash settlement.

Q: What do you think was PBC's strongest argument or piece of evidence presented during the trial?

A: That the city was involved in a plan to undermine their own tenant and force them to sell, now being called the "poisoned well" argument. It was sort of an odd situation where both sides' testimony was completely full of shit: You had PBC saying "Why would we ever talk about moving the team to Oklahoma City? What a crazy notion!" (b.s), and the city saying "Try to undermine PBC and force them to sell? What an awful idea!" (also b.s.). If the judge rules that the city and the PBC have an irreparably damaged relationship, she may let the team out of the lease.

Q: Is there anything you think the city could have done better during the process leading up to the trial? If so, what? What about during this trial?

A: They could've been a little more discreet with their plans to try to force the PBC to sell, but considering how fast the situation was moving, that's almost hoping for too much. If the city and lawyers and consultants had only met face to face, with no notes or something, they never could've gotten anything done. During the trial--much was made of the judge being tough on the city, but I think if you're a judge deciding a case in which your own city is a party, you almost have to err on the side of skepticism, if only to make the decision more likely to stand up on appeal.

Q: If Judge Pechman rules in favour of PBC buying its way out of the lease, do you think there is still any hope for keeping the team (i.e. appeal, the Schultz lawsuit, or something else), or will that mean they're definitely gone?

A: If the city loses, I think the team is gone. The city would have to seek an injunction to keep the team here, but, more importantly, they'd have to put up a bond to pay for any losses the team incurred while staying here during the appeal--estimated in the tens of millions. I think at that point, non-basketball-fans would say, "hey, wait--why are we paying for this again?" And if the team moved, the remedy hoped for in Schultz' case, to "unwind the sale", would be more undoable. Plus the Schultz case is going in front of the same judge--if she ruled for PBC here, it's hard to imagine her ruling against PBC in an even more difficult to prove case.

Q: If the city is allowed to enforce the "specific performance" clause, do you see the Sonics remaining here any longer than 2010?

A: Possibly--if Schultz wins his case, and/or if the NBA don't want the black eye of a lame duck team, and they and the city work something out.

Q: If the team leaves, do you see Seattle ever getting another NBA franchise? If so, what timeframe do you think is likely?

A: Maybe, but I think it would be a disaster--at least at the start, just like Charlotte has been. The NBA's percieved heartlessness here has turned off so many fans, I think they'll be leaguesona non grata for at least ten years. And for the youngsters, you've got the resurgent Trailblazers right down the road, who not only have Nate "Mr. Sonic" McMillan as coach, but local boy (Garfield High, my alma mater, what what!) and University of Washington star Brandon Roy as their star player.

Thanks again to Seth for taking the time to do this. Here's his bio paragraph, written specially at my request:

For Seth Kolloen, executive editor of Sports Northwest magazine and founder and sole proprietor of EnjoyTheEnjoyment.com, a Sonics game at the Kingdome was the very first pro sporting event he saw live. During the 1996 Sonics/Bulls finals, he convinced the managers of the chain drug store where he worked to set up a portable TV near the checkout counter so he could watch the games.

Hope you enjoyed this new segment: be sure to post suggestions or thoughts on it in the comments, or e-mail them to me directly. More of these to follow later today!