Cold Hard Football Facts has an interesting tidbit from the Patriots draft:

In fact, there was something of a mini dust-up in the press box at Gillette Saturday night with reporters pissed by the fact that the Patriots were posting their picks on Twitter before announcing them to the media. Essentially, the NFL, and individual teams like the Patriots, are eliminating the middle man called the traditional reporter – and reporters are not happy.

So after getting beat again by Twitter, one reporter blew up at Patriots staffers, yelling that “these guys own everything” (apparently referring to the organization), while pointing out the press box window, and said that they’re “killing” him.

Another reporter lamented: “We are now totally useless.”

First thoughts (and Facts!) on the draft (CHFF)

Published by Bruce Allen

Automattician.

76 thoughts on “Patriots Have Reporters All a Twitter”

  3. While not a huge social networking fan in general, or of Twitter in particular (Real sample Tweet: “Just got back from walking my dog.”), it was VERY cool to read about what the Pats were doing ahead of when the jag-offs at ESPN told us.

    So, let’s recap. As fans, we now get to see and hear all the post-game press conferences ourselves as they happen, we have the opportunity to see highlights and scores whenever we want to via cable, dish, or the Internet, and we’re getting information from events as they happen BEFORE even the media does. So, tell me, all-knowing Boston Globe supporters, why I need to ever buy a newspaper again? So I can reread stuff I already learned hours earlier? No thanks. Think I’ll save my $0.75 every day and my $2.50 on Sunday.

    I do feel badly for Mike Reiss and Chris Gasper as they may be the only two agenda-less sports writers remaining in the city.

    Like

  4. If you’re in media you’re on twitter! These guys should be leveraging twitter by not posting links to thier articles (boring)but rather tweeting live from games, practices, etc.

    Like

    1. My thoughts were that the Patriots had announced they were going to do this last week. Perhaps these media people could’ve taken a few minutes to learn about this whole “twitter thing” and perhaps even learned how to use it so that they could get the picks at the same time as the WEEI callers. The outrage over this just really cements them as feeling entitled and stuck in the old way of doing things.

      Like

      1. Funny thing is that they don’t even have to learn how to use twitter, just going to the one page and pounding the refresh button would have worked for their purposes.

        Like

        1. I agree. In fact, I thought Mike Reiss would be all over this by being on the twitter page and then immediately posting it to Boston.com. In fact, the Patriots updated twitter right when they got on the clock (right after previous team picked).

          Like

      2. The entitlement mentality of the media is the real story here Bruce, you’re 100% correct.

        Is there any doubt that the minor nothing that was “spygate” was so overblown by the media–even the local media–because they had felt slighted by Belichick for years and their entitlement mentality prodded them to seek “revenge” against him in his moment of weakness?

        I have no doubts about that.

        This latest incident, if you can call it that, just confirms what a lot of us have known about the media for a long time–they think they’re different, and special, and should be treated that way.

        Like

  6. I sincerely hope the complainers are not friends of mine, because their attitude is spectacularly clueless. They weren’t working for ESPN or NFL Network, so why should a five-minute scoop bother them? They weren’t at Foxboro to present up-to-the-nanosecond Internet stenography on who the Pats picked, they were there to present information and analysis ON said picks.
    As noted by a previous commenter, Twitter ain’t exactly a secret society. Instead of being “killed” by the Pats, these reporters were being given a potential five-minute head start on doing their actual assignments.
    One good reaction to a more competitive environment is to compete more.

    Like

    1. Actually, in these times, a lot of papers have been pushing their web product far more than their printed products. Most of them are starting to evaluate a story based on how many web hits it yields.

      Like

  7. “We are now totally useless.”
    Now?
    No! You just realised that now but you have been useless for a while.
    PS: One of the 2 reporters was a female.

    Like

  8. A female? It must have been the woman at Providence. I saw her at Pats game one time and overheard her complaining about some minor thing.

    Like

    1. Shalise Manza Young is fairly tech-savvy. I don’t think she’d be up in arms about this. I could be wrong though.

      Like

      1. Yeah. I would be suprised if it was SMY too. For whats its worth Wendy Nix was there as ESPNs on site correspondet too. I’d say she was rather useless all weekend long. Not her fault really. Anyone working as a correspondent for ESPN in Foxboro this weekend wouln’t have done much better.

        Like

  9. I must be too old for this twittering/tweeting stuff….if you were looking at the Patriots “tweets” you found out who they picked… what?.. 1 or 2 minutes earlier than if you just watched the commish announce it on TV or followed ESPN.Com’s draft tracker?……I don’t see the big deal….I must be missing something….as far as the sportswriters go I don’t see why they are upset. Tweeting or no tweeting do they really think THEY were breaking news or something?…They do know the draft is TELEVISED LIVE on 2 networks don’t they?… plus the regular old non-twittering internet?…..they’ve been useless for YEARS

    Like

    2. you do realize that the “regular old non-twittering internet” is populated mostly by the same print journalists you just called useless, right?

      Like

  10. I KNEADED TO KNOW THE PATS TRATED THERE PICKS 1 MINUTE BEFOUR ANYONE ELSE THAT WAY I COULD UPDATE MY FACEBOOKPAGE AND SEND OUT A TECKSMESSAGE!!!!!

    Like

  11. You’re either carried ahead by progress or pushed aside by it. The good reporters and media folks will adapt and improve and fans will get better insights as a result.

    Like

  12. Bruce – Being “tech savvy” has nothing to do with it. Her personality (or whoever’s personality) may be that she’s a bitchy. I’m not saying she is or isn’t.

    Like

    1. In this case, I think it does. Someone who is “tech savvy” is more likely to actually go to Twitter and get the information as soon as it is released, rather than complaining that they have to wait the extra 1-2 minutes for the media release. It might be Shalise, but my limited experience with her doesn’t seem to fit the episode. It could also have been Karen Guregian.

      Like

      1. She mentioned this on the Felger show Sunday morning. She has no idea what twitter is or how to use it. Karen was very frustrated that her friends were calling her and asking about the picks before she heard about them.

        Like

  14. I think it’s unfair to start making these accusations toward a reporter with no confirmation that it was actually her that made the comment.

    Like

  15. If you have an issue with something I have written/reported as it pertains to the New England Patriots, I welcome a debate.

    The conversation and joking that took place amounted to water cooler talk; there are frequent discussions among reporters these days about the status of our profession, and the “now we’re useless” quip was a morbid joke, which we believed was said among friends. No one expected an outsider to publicize it.

    For the record, the ProJo PatsBlog is on twitter (twitter.com/projopatsblog) and has been for a few weeks.

    Sincerely,
    Shalise Manza Young

    Like

    1. Dear Shalise,

      Thank you for responding, it puts the story into perspective. I was really surprised to read the story and was thinking to myself, could they be so simple. After reading your comment, I can see it as being harmless banter among your peers and that possibility should have been offered in the story.

      Honestly, what’s happening to the media though ?

      Like

      1. The “traditional” media is fighting. I can only speak for the ProJo, but we have tried to be ahead of the curve in terms of embracing the internet, and have been web-focused for nearly two years. That means that game stories are on the web as soon as they’ve been edited — not posted at 2 a.m. the next day, as a “normal” news cycle used to be.

        Now the issue is finding a way to generate money through the web as we do with print ads in the paper to ensure that we can continue to give our readers — in Rhode Island and beyond — the best sports news we can…

        shalise

        Like

  16. I find it “interesting” that you all are sitting here bashing people based on comments taken out of context and other speculative information.

    I don’t know these folks anymore than some of you (not including the individuals who, based on your “insightful” comments; obviously work in this environment) but I would think that being in a room with their colleagues for two days straight, might spark some conversation. The kind of conversation that the rest of us have in our faculty rooms, breakout spaces and anywhere else our jobs allow us to gather. How many of you have been frustrated at work about something and vented to a colleague? How many of you laborers have thought about your job in this day of automation? You folks need to really consider what it is you are really ranting about.

    So ask yourself, while the Globe is bleeding nearly $1 million/week, if you worked there, wouldn’t you be a bit worried?

    Just because one individual broke the unwritten code of “what happens behind closed doors, stays behind closed doors” doesn’t give us the right to judge people who, at the end of the day, we really don’t know anything about.

    And for all those who say the media is useless, given the Bill B. is as tight lipped as they come in the NFL, if these people didn’t go to the stadium 6 days a week, do you really think the Pats are going to take the time to fill “you” in? Do you really think that they care whether or not we are up to date with the happenings of their locker room? Let’s be realistic.

    FYI, most of the boston media use twitter themselves.

    just a couple of thoughts. My goal was not offend anyone, rather shed a little realistic light on the topic.

    James-

    Like

    1. LMAO!….”fill you in”?….”happenings in the locker room”???…yeah right, by going to the stadium 6 days a week the media digs up gems like…. “we really have to focus this week”……”The Bills are much tougher than their record indicates”…..”we’re taking it one game at a time”……Thank God for the media, couldn’t live without that “info”

      Like

  17. James – the Patriots (or any other team) choose to communicate with their paying customers only because the media is there 6 days a week? Otherwise they’d clam up and tell their fans to go screw? Am I following you right there?

    I think there’s some great people working down there these days – Reiss is a big favorite here, along with others – and I value the work tremendously, but let’s not overstate the media’s significance to how the team is operated.

    Like

  18. As Mel Brooks told Harvey Korman in Blazing Saddles, “We’ve got to protect our phony-baloney jobs”.

    Like

  19. “And for all those who say the media is useless, given the Bill B. is as tight lipped as they come in the NFL, if these people didn’t go to the stadium 6 days a week, do you really think the Pats are going to take the time to fill “you” in? Do you really think that they care whether or not we are up to date with the happenings of their locker room?”

    Right, because that is good business.

    James, please name all of the successful pro sports teams operating in this economic environment that are doing so by blowing off the fans.

    Belichick appears to withhold critical information from the general public, for example about injuries, as a way of keeping the information out of the hands of the opposition. As a fan, I’m not offended or bothered by this.

    Like

    1. Me neither, BD. Nor am I particularly concerned about whether I’m up to date with the happenings of their locker room, especially when it comes to injury speculation (such as the Adalius Thomas, IR or no IR last year).

      Like

      1. same here…The only reason I would really,really, NEED the Pats injury info before gametime is if I was betting on the game….other than that I just wait until gametime (the only time that counts) and see who’s on the field……yet the media seems really bothered by this…. “IT’S EASIER TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE KREMLIN!!” WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

        Like

  20. SMY! Would anyone of those “insiders” have hesitated to report anything they overheard in the locker room? How about if by some chance one of them could eavesdrop on telephone conversations between BB and other GMs during the draft which the participants thought were private, would they hesitate to report it? Why should I feel bad when the tables are turned on them?

    Like

    1. As reporters, we see and hear a great deal of things when we’re in the locker room. Some of it is on the record, and most of it is off the record or simply is never reported because it isn’t newsworthy or because we understand that it isn’t meant to become public knowledge.

      The simple fact is: the “now we’re useless” quip was a joke, said between friends. We did not expect it to be publicized, and certainly not misrepresented the way that it was.

      shalise

      Like

      1. What about “these guys own everything”? Was that a joke too? Because Shalise, I’m sure you understand that kind of mentality has worked its way into the work of certain people – be it columnists and even beat reporters – ever since Belichick was placed in charge of the football organization.

        One beat reporter, after several years of open bitching about Belichick and the team’s approach to the media, was said to have sought another assignment because of the “tough” environment in Foxborough. I’m not sure that was to be publicized either, but I heard it, as did others. Naturally, in the story I heard, the reporter was portrayed as a victim.

        Don’t be surprised then when you get this kind of reaction. Its not your fault, but we’ve heard almost a decade of complaining from the media about Foxborough, incredibly even as the team experienced unprecedented – even historical – success, and we fans were entertained far beyond our wildest pre-Belichick imaginations. The CHFF blurb, however inappropriate in your eyes, resonates with us because we really don’t give a shit how hard the media’s job is, and how (in James’s posts above) the media is the fan’s guardians at the gate of an oppressive regime. Its a football team, not a government agency.

        Like

        1. The misrepresentation/joke I’m speaking of was the “we are now totally useless” part, which was said between myself and another reporter, who also happens to be a very good friend.

          I honestly did not hear the “they own everything” part, so I can’t comment on whether that was said or the tone in which it was said…

          shalise

          Like

          1. Thanks Shalise. I appreciate the response. To me though, a misrepresentation implies that the guys at CHFF knew it was a joke and deliberately portrayed it otherwise in their post.

            As has been said here, I see no reason why they should be assumed to know that it was a joke.

            Like

      3. I believe you when you say it was a joke. I have no reason not to believe you on that. Was there any way an “outsider” could have misinterpreted the tone of the quote or would it have been apparent to anyone in the room “insider” or “outsider” that it was a joke.
        Either way. Joke or not I think there has to be some frustration on your part and the rest of the media on how the Pats were announcing the picks during the draft. If for any other reason that it’s one more blow to the newspaper business. If so then CHFF was right in that the NFL is trying to bypass the middle man and go straight to the customer and that is making beat writers uncomfortable. But maybe wrong in exaggerating it if in fact it should have been obvious that it was meant as a joke. As for the fact that he publicized it I have no problems with that. I feel bad that it was misinterpreted/exaggerated and you were portrayed in an unfair light but, a lot of your colleagues (not you) have crossed that line themselves plenty of times so I think it’s fair game (the publicizing of the quip, not the exaggeration/misinterpretation).

        Like

      4. This feels like the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry heckled the heckler.

        I believe you when you say it was a joke, and that it was taken out of context, but that doesn’t matter. Why should you expect people reporting on what you say to be held to a higher standard than that to which your profession holds itself?

        You didn’t expect what was said to be publicized and misrepresented? Tough. It happens all the time to people covered by the press.

        Earlier this decade there was an incident in which a feed to the Patriots draft room was inadvertently available briefly to reporters. Most reporters respected what they knew to be privileged information, but a few reported on what they heard.

        How about Spygate, and the fabrication the Herald printed before the Super Bowl? Had the Patriots had your expectations of fair play, they would have expected the Herald to fully vet their sources and gotten confirmation before printing. None of that happened, they were falsely accused and will carry a stigma that will last long past the messy details of the actual truth. And there were no repercussions for those involved, other than an “Oops, my bad.”

        I appreciate the context you’ve given on the comments, and maybe CHFF shouldn’t have run it. But it just feels like a “What comes around, goes around” moment to me.

        And like Scott says below, joke or not, the sentiment still resonates. We’ve long heard it before from your colleagues, so we know there’s a kernel of seriousness behind the joke.

        Like

  21. One thing that I have always wondered is how come the Patriots Football weekly guys never brake any stories? When was the last scoop they had? You would think they’d be in prime position to do this yet they seem to have less access to the team sources than anyone? Why wouldn’t Bob Kraft want to break every new free agent signing on patriots.com? Wouldn’t it bring more traffic to the website?

    Like

    1. Think about the quality of the journalism industry as a whole. Now think about the quality of the reporters whose only job prospects are working for a team published weekly.

      As for the rest, the “it was a joke” defense sounds awfully convenient.

      Like

      1. I think the PFW guys are pretty objective in what they provide, which is analysis and opinion. I don’t think Bob Kraft wants them to be mindless ball washers. What I was referring to was breaking news. Like the signing of a free agent or the release of another. Or even like they did on tweeter on Sunday , the trade of Ellis Hobbs. It would make, IMO, business sense for them to break these stories in their website. As far as commentary and opinion on the news the readers can go and get it wherever they want, whether in a newspaper , radio or TV. They can get it from the likes of Ron Borges/John Tommase or Mike Reiss/SMY.

        Like

  22. I think I left my Irony Meter next to the microwave or maybe a high powered magnet. It surely needs a recalibration. Anyone have a name or number of a professional?

    Like

  24. Hey Dan…what the heck does that mean?

    ‘I believe you when you say it was a joke, and that it was taken out of context, but that doesn’t matter. Why should you expect people reporting on what you say to be held to a higher standard than that to which your profession holds itself?”

    Gallow’s humor is not allowed in your line of work? Especially if there’s private conversation. You know, I read the papers just like you. Have a regular job just like you. But I don’t quite get the venom toward the media. Seems like its a little out of place.

    Like

    1. Mike, a lot of the venom toward the media is self-created. They act like it’s a profession, but there aren’t any standards, no licensing boards, no peer review (why I’m opposed to shield laws, btw). With the sports media, we hear about how wonderful certain coaches are (IF they share restaurant tips with reporters or give them scoops) whilst others who don’t play that game are considered “pond-scum” (hope I have the quote correct). We hear about how terrible the facilities are for a Super Bowl in Detroit or Jacksonville, when most of us would give our left nut to be at a Super Bowl, even if it was in Boise. We hear “aggravating travel notes” of the week, which generally consist of the half-caf diet no-fat chocolate latte being to sweet. In other words, they have no freaking clue what the rest of us are like, that for many of us sports is a diversion from the freaking heavy lifting of our 40 or 48 hour a week jobs, while they have contracts for life as if they where Idi Amin Dada. No, cry me no tears for the demise of the “traditional” media with its hacks and agendas.

      Like

    2. Mike, what I took exception to was SMY’s comment that “We did not expect it to be publicized, and certainly not misrepresented the way that it was.” Somebody else in that room turned the tables on these reporters, treating them as the subject of the piece that got to CHFF. I’m saying that the people they cover have to be extra careful when speaking in a reporter’s presence, since anything they say could be publicized and misrepresented.

      Gallows humor is fine, of course. But be mindful that what you joke about in a room full of reporters could end up on a page somewhere. Even if you’re one of them.

      Same standard to which public figures are held in a room full of microphones.

      Like

  25. OK so the Pats put their picks on their Twitter feed a few minutes before they shared it with the media. Um. Am I missing something here? I mean, who the hell is waiting for the next day’s paper any more to read who the Pats took in the first round. C’mon, are you guys for real? What is the value proposition that the Reisses, Guregians and Farleys and Farinellas give their readers? Those guys and ladies should be Twittering the news themselves.

    Shame on them for being so far behind social media that they don’t even know there’s a race going on. The day that newspapers bite the bullet, look in the mirror and admit to themselves that their viability is no longer found in newsprint and paper, the quicker their recovery will be. The future is here. All papers should be online entities providing round the clock updates that are not bound to delivery cycles, zoned issues or deadlines based on some union print shop and truck drivers.

    This incident (incident?) puts it perfectly in a nutshell. These guys are sitting around covering the draft as a next-day story when the REST OF THE JOURNALISM WORLD works in real time. And they have the gall the complain. Wow.

    Like

  26. Because my name was mentioned in L3s’s post, I will respond.

    Over the two days of the NFL Draft, I put 60 posts on my blog (which appears at http://www.thesunchronicle.com/farinella). Those included looks back at where the Patriots had picked in the past at their assigned selections (and I did update those when the picks changed), real-time announcements of the trades or picks, thumbnail profiles of the drafted players, quick quotes or analysis and the full texts of the transcripts sent to me by the Patriots.

    I understand that I can’t match the gold standard, which is Reiss’ Pieces. But for a dinosaur from a dinky daily, I didn’t do too badly.

    At the same time, I also wrote several stories of an analytical or profiling nature for the print and online editions of my paper — more copy for online than print, in fact.

    One thing you may not know is that after the first few “tweets,” the Patriots’ media relations staff began announcing the picks or trades in the press box at about the same time as they were putting them on Twitter (which was still ahead of the NFL announcements). Whether that was because of complaints from other reporters, I can’t say. I didn’t hear the complaints and I had no problem with the Twitter posts. Most of the people I know don’t know what Twitter is, or know but don’t use it, or probably would not be predisposed to be checking it constantly for the Patriots’ draft picks.

    In any event, I think most of us beat reporters understand that we’re not breaking the act of selection to anyone. We’re there to put that information into a context that can’t be delivered in 140 characters or fewer.

    But probably because of this episode, I am now trying my hand at Twitter as well (my posts are at FearlessSC and the newspaper’s story links are at TheSunChronicle) — although I admit, I have a natural skepticism about its true value. I’m just not convinced yet that it’s the most important thing in the world for me to deliver instantaneous reports about whether Tom Brady stubbed his toe in practice. I mean, maybe I’d want to know immediately if the North Koreans were lobbing a nuke over the Arctic Ocean at us. But Brady’s toe? Removing myself from my role in the industry, I could wait for the 6 p.m. news for that tidbit and the corresponding impact upon my life that that news might have.

    But many of you seem to feel differently, so individuals like myself are trying to respond.

    I would, however, like to hear some serious feedback on why you put such a high priority on instantaneous sports information. For example, would it really enhance the quality of your life that much if, at 11 a.m. Thursday when Patrick Chung gets a ceremonial jersey from Robert Kraft, I and 10 other reporters started tapping “Chung gets jersey from Kraft” with our thumbs onto Twitter?

    Back to the draft, perhaps many of you were unaware of my efforts because a paper the size of The Sun Chronicle may be deemed beneath your notice. I expect to read that in some of the comments that will follow. But I thought it was important enough to this debate to let you know that at least at some newspapers, including mine, the effort to use new technology is being made.

    Thanks for reading.

    Like

    1. Mark, good for you for embracing the technology. I would agree that Tweets on all Patriots banality wouldn’t be anything I’m interested in. But Twitter was the perfect tool for announcing draft picks. As I saw someone else post, it was one of those times where form met function. Were I a reporter, I’d try to find similar uses for the application.

      As for your work, I don’t care how big your newspaper is. “Deemed beneath your notice” makes it sound like we’re Boston Globe snobs. If you have good copy and good insight on the Patriots, I’ll read you.

      Like

    2. Mike Reiss was well read and noteworthy well before he started working for the Globe.
      If the team makes a roster move most fans appreciate finding out instantly. Especially on something like the draft, where they have been waiting a few months to find out who the newest Patritos are going to be. Same with free agency. Kraft presenting Chung with a jersy is not that big a deal but what Chung says at the event might be. Does it make my life better? No. Getting a raise, being healthy, having healthy and happy kids makes my life better. Patriots winnig or losing does not change that. So should I stop following the team and caring about it because of it doesn’t change what’s important in my life? The Pats are a hobby. Just like videogaming or hikking or bikking or watching movies. Does it make your life better if the wait to go down the skii slope is smaller and you can get in one more turn than you would get normaly? If not then does that mean you shouldn’t care/want it to be smaller?

      Like

    3. Mark, the value and high priority of instant information comes in the fact that you’re building an audience beyond the 20K newspapers delivered by the Sun Chronicle. [BTW, I wasn’t picking on you earlier].

      If your readers follow you on Twitter, you have an opportunity to drive them back to your website to read your analytical pieces, profiles and breaking news there.

      The beauty of Twitter is its viral nature. My Twitter followers will see your updates and if they’re engaged enough to click through to your site, they may start following you as well. Remember the old commercial about someone telling two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on… If your paper–any newspaper–learns how to monetize content on the Web and capitalize on this kind of audience building, then you have something there.

      You blog a lot and if you’re starting a Twitter feed, then kudos to you. You’re miles ahead of many of your colleagues in there who are too set in their ways and too obstinate to adopt to how information is disseminated today. It’s not going to change, especially as mobile devices get smarter and more Internet-enabled.

      The generations of newsprint readers are dying off, literally. I’m not laying any new groundwork when I say that most of us get our news from television first, and the Net a close second. Writers and news organizations are already behind the curve when it comes to Internet-enabled news. Those of you who catch up quickly will be the survivors–the rest, eh, not so much.

      Like

      1. Thanks, guys. I sincerely appreciate the feedback and the advice/info on using the new technologies.

        Like

    4. Wanted to support Fearless on this one. I agree with his overall skepticism about the value of Twitter. However, I think tweeting the draft picks is an incredible use for it, but only because the information itself is so valuable.

      With all the talk over the weekend about Twitter replacing reporters in the press box, I think it is a little easy to over estimate its power. The key value of reporters is their knowledge and access. Twitter is just a medium, and a 140 character limited one at that. Without good content, its just another glorified IM service.

      Like

  28. Hey Bruce … As the author of the report in question, I just want to let people know that the quotes from the press box were NOT taken out of context.

    The female reporter I mentioned, apparently Ms. Young of the ProJo, was exasperated when she said it, at least that’s the way it sounded to me. It was just a few minutes after the other reporter had his mini-fit. He was definitely angry. So it was consistent with his reaction. But I’m happy to take Ms. Young at her word that she was making a joke. The words still reflect the frustration many in the media are feeling.

    And I reported these words for a very sound journalistic reason: they offered very telling insight into the powerful institution called the media, during a time of great crisis and turmoil for the industry.

    Sadly, because media control the messaging, we never get honest behind-the-scenes views inside the bubble of media power in this time of crisis. But I was able to offer a brief, accurate glimpse of what’s going on inside the bubble. The media call this a “public service” when the subject is anyone but themselves.

    The predictable response here, though, is a classic example of the double-standard the media holds for itself.

    From my perspective as a reporter for many major publications, and as a media businessman, and as someone intimately familiar with and concerned about the health of the industry, this elitist attitude goes a long way toward explaining the public’s lack of trust in media. It also helps explain the poor financial state of the industry. These factors, the elitism, the double standards, lack of trust, and the lack of financial viability, are intricately intertwined. However, “traditional” media prefer to use the internet, like Twitter for example, as a convenient excuse for their ills.

    The reporters in question here may, in fact, be very, very good reporters and quality individuals. I did not use names because I did not want to embarrass any individual. I wish them well. I have no need or desire to impugn their character, and don’t think I did. After all, they did nothing improper or unethical, they merely did something interesting.

    I simply offered a look inside the bubble of turmoil in an industry that, as evident by the numbers of comments you received, clearly holds some interest to the public.

    Like

  29. OK Kerry, now that you’ve chimed in, it’s your turn.

    “Stories” such as yours are absolutely what gives bloggers a bad name. You have no filter. You have no vetting process. You need an editor.

    So you basically overheard a conversation/outburst and reported it, am I correct? Did you talk to the woman from the ProJo for clarification? Guess not since you weren’t sure it was her. Did you talk to the other reporter who had a “mini-fit”? Guess not.

    While the Twitter issue here may be the discussion starter for a larger story about the state of journalism, it’s hardly for a blog post the purports this “incident” as a viable story. Hell, you’ve got Bruce calling it a dust-up, and I’d bet a week’s pay it was nothing, nowhere close to a dust-up.

    You’re talking about a lack of trust, hell, if I were your media colleagues at Foxboro, I wouldn’t trust you with a casual conversation on the weather. No chance. You didn’t look inside the bubble of turmoil, you essentially spread gossip–and that’s the worst kind of journalism going.

    Nice job.

    Like

  30. Correcting a typo:

    “”While the Twitter issue here may be the discussion starter for a larger story about the state of journalism, it’s hardly fodder for a blog post that purports this “incident” as a viable story. Hell, you’ve got Bruce calling it a dust-up, and I’d bet a week’s pay it was nothing, nowhere close to a dust-up.””

    Like

  31. “And I reported these words for a very sound journalistic reason: they offered very telling insight into the ‘powerful institution called the media, during a time of great crisis and turmoil for the industry.”

    Wow Kerry. You really believe the first part of that? I know dozens of people that piss and moan about their job, from teachers to my mailman to 250,000 dollar executives. Does the same hold true for them too? Should I start a blog and do the same to them as you did to SMY? I think your motives aren’t clear.

    Like

  32. Seems to me that L3s and Mike have a grudge. What Kerry reported was indeed germane to the issue of the sports media. What would an editor do, Mike, to have made the story better. It’s apparent that Ms. Young, who by the way, outed herself as the reporter in question, did indeed make the statement. It’s further apparent that the traditional media are in fact in state of turmoil, and are coming to embrace new media way too late for some of them. But mike’s comparison of teachers and mailmen to reporters is quite apt…they basically have employment for life, even when long past the time when they contribute anything meaningful.

    Like

  33. Bruce, NV:
    Are you kidding me?

    First, I don’t know Kerry, nor do I have a grudge. Can’t speak for Mike.

    What would an editor do? How about tell Kerry, “Hey amateur, you can’t report hearsay!! Go find out what these people were really talking about and quote them on the record!” That’s what an editor would say.

    No editor on earth would let a story get past them based on EAVESDROPPING!! Are you kidding me?

    Like

  34. L3s – Spot on.

    And Bruce, statements like that – anger like that – is why they’ll always be a shadow of doubt about blogs, and this from a guy who has his own blog, twitters and facebooks. Maybe not every “real” journalist puts in a real effort, but way more bloggers fire bullets from their computer without ever showing up in a locker room, or on press row. Now maybe their opinions are smart and educated from what they watch, but why would I take their stuff as law? Shank may be writing the same columns over and over again, but at least I know he has a deep rolodex.

    Oh, and why the hate for mailmen and teachers? What the heck did the postal service ever do to you? Have a bad calculus teacher in H.S.?

    Like

Comments are closed.