A few days ago, when someone posted the link to the "article" listing the top five college football recruiting scandals in NCAA history (and putting Clemson at No. 2), it didn't bother me all that much.
"Hey, some sportswriter did some research and decided that Clemson's ugly scandal in the early 80s was ugly enough to be No. 2," I thought to myself.
But then you read the fine print and discover you've never heard of the girl who wrote the "article" for Yahoo! Sports. You read a little more and discover her credentials are "growing up in central Pennsylvania and watching Penn State football." You read a little more and discover that she's part of the "Yahoo! Contributor Network," and that you, too, can start publishing your own sports content by signing up here!
Over the last year or two, Yahoo! has done some remarkable and impressive things. They've opened a can on ESPN and everyone else in the area of investigative reporting, having the guts to dig with a jackhammer when others are afraid of digging with anything more than a toothpick. The acquisition of Pat Forde, for my money the best college football/basketball writer out there, was a huge get.
But on this topic, Yahoo! might need to rethink its foray into the world of vanity sportswriting. Leave amateur hour to the ... amateurs.
I'm reminded of an article I stumbled on earlier this month from Bleacher Report, that bastion of amateurism. Dwayne Allen had already announced his intentions to skip his senior year and go pro. There were articles about it and everything. Yet here was an article from Bleacher Report that was about the possibility of Allen returning for his senior year. It said something to the effect of "sources close to the situation say Allen has elected to turn pro, but maybe Andre Ellington can talk him into coming back in 2012."
It was hogwash. It wasn't just out of left field. It was out of the parking lot beyond left field. A few seconds of research revealed that the "sportswriter" was some dude from Miami who had zero connection to Clemson and zero experience covering Clemson. But the article probably generated a lot of hits from Clemson fans who wanted to know more about this "story," so it was probably a good "story" in Bleacher Report's eyes.
That's the way they roll, and unfortunately it's the way a lot of people roll these days. The standard for a story is much less "is there anything to this?" than "if we can make 10 bucks off thousands of hits, roll with it baby!"
I say this at the risk of sounding like a whiny, territorial sportswriter who doesn't like other people infringing on my profession. And rest assured there's an excessive number of whiny, territorial people in this business.
But this is as much about the consumers of content as it is about the producers of it. When a web site allows some nobody to "report" or opine on a topic on which he or she has no background, expertise or authority, and then packages it as something that's supposed to be considered credible, it is an insult to the intelligence of the people clicking on the articles.
The media industry is as wild, as crazy and as undefined as ever. When college students ask me how they can become sportswriters, I have no idea what to tell them. So many voices and opinions out there, so many people trying to distinguish their voices and opinions above the others. No mystery why there are so many outrageous opinions these days, so many people rushing to post scoops about Joe Paterno dying before he's dead and stuff.
You shouldn't have to sift through the fine print to learn that the person delivering the news or opinions is just some dude (or dudette) who felt like writing something that day. There should be a bold-face disclaimer that explicitly informs readers the writer is just some dude (or dudette) who felt like writing something that day.
This business is in dire need of more credibility, not less.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment