Media Thread

[herman]

That's a pretty aggro response.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That's a pretty aggro response.

Some people get very angry when even the suggestion of them opening their wallet comes up, probably a guilty conscience.

 

[rdowdall]

Hyper aggro quote.

Hyper assholes is more like it.  I can't stand those types.  Another good reason not to subscribe.

How is that a reason not to subscribe? Its bad PR but I think you're naive if you think newspaper owners don't want to crush their competition. Anyway the content is good and writers deserve to be paid for their content. I'm tired of the sob story of newspapers basically backing a bad revenue model and now we should all feel bad for them that they cut whole departments.

I'm naive? Where do you expect to get your news in say, 20 years?  Or do you think quality reporting will just magically happen for free, just like it does now on the Internet?

Oh wait.  It doesn't.  What we get instead is torrents of horsecrap.

I hope these assholes go bankrupt, and the sooner the better.

Not trying to stir the pot, just wondering why his quote rankles you so much?  You've used colorful language to describe this situation twice now, so it seems like this runs deeper than just this particular quote.

I really don't care one way the other about this debate.  I don't buy newspapers, and I don't subscribe to The Athletic.  Information is free.  People can put their own opinions together if they want to from that information.  What I find news outlets provide now is just a service to cobble the information together for me and present it in a pretty package.  I don't really need that, but that's just me.

 

[bustaheims]

I hope these assholes go bankrupt, and the sooner the better.

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

 

[herman]

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

 

[bustaheims]

So there less outlets for talent sportswriters to make a living? Newspapers were cutting the budget of their sports staff long before these guys came around. The jobs in the more traditional print outlets are gone, and they're not coming back. If the Athletic goes, that just means there are even less jobs.

It's Monday. Brain not work so well.

 

[Kin]

To step away from a second from who is or isn't an a-hole you do wonder about how the way they seem to look at their business model affects content. If they look at the supposed 100,000 Chicago die-hard sports fans as all being potential customers than can they really print stuff that's consistently challenging to any significant segment of that number?

This is sort of the issue Facebook and Twitter are having with content right now albeit in a much more benign form. They got to where they are via constant rapacious growth and, as a result, seem to have no interest or ability to have any sort of opinion on what their platform should be for other than the facilitation of that growth.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in this context, the Hot Take Industrial Complex doesn't need to be everywhere, but information without context or restraint isn't usually a good thing. There's a reason why traditional sports sections had columnists even if we only tend to remember the bad ones.

 

[herman]

It's Monday. Brain not work so well.

 

[Highlander]

NYT may not have a quote saying that... but he already addressed it almost exactly as you said would be better PR:

Yeah, on the third pass he seems to have got it. To some extent that's closing the barn doors after the horse got out but that's the internet for you.

For sure.  He gave the NYT a doozy of a quote that he can only try damage control on and it won't be enough anyways because barely anyone is going to check his tweets for more context.

Arrogance is never a good place to start, a little humility goes a long way. If your intent is to kill another media perhaps it is not a great idea to broadcast the fact. It has been said Revenge is a dish best served up cold, in this case a little magnanimity would go a lot further than a foot stomp on a curve.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

To step away from a second from who is or isn't an a-hole you do wonder about how the way they seem to look at their business model affects content. If they look at the supposed 100,000 Chicago die-hard sports fans as all being potential customers than can they really print stuff that's consistently challenging to any significant segment of that number?

This is sort of the issue Facebook and Twitter are having with content right now albeit in a much more benign form. They got to where they are via constant rapacious growth and, as a result, seem to have no interest or ability to have any sort of opinion on what their platform should be for other than the facilitation of that growth.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in this context, the Hot Take Industrial Complex doesn't need to be everywhere, but information without context or restraint isn't usually a good thing. There's a reason why traditional sports sections had columnists even if we only tend to remember the bad ones.

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

We shall see how it plays out.

 

[ZBBM]

That's a pretty aggro response.

Some people get very angry when even the suggestion of them opening their wallet comes up, probably a guilty conscience.

You are quite right.  In fact, they are precisely those people who didn't just post a comment saying that quality information comes with a price tag.

 

[rdowdall]

So I got a question for you. Who read the Mirtle article about the Leafs today?

If a colleague of yours sent that too you, and that colleague is a Sens fan, how would you take that?

 

[Kin]

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

That's not really what I meant. Being critical of a team that seems to be on the wrong track, like Montreal, is pretty safe I think. Most habs fans are probably on board with taking shots at Bergevin and the players and while that may cost a reporter some friendliness with sources(and to be sure the Elliotte Friedman/Chris Johnston style "insider" reporting is its own ball of wax) I don't think it would upset a fanbase.

I'm talking about the issues that are really divisive among a fanbase. Take something like stadium financing or, maybe more pointedly, a Patrick Kane-type situation. If you're aiming to sign up all fans, can you take a strong editorial position on an issue that splits a fanbase?

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

People refusing to read news from an ideological bent(or even perceived bent) that in anyway challenges their own preconceived notions is one of the things that drove news readership down(or splintered it, anyway). I don't know how any media organization can put off that reality indefinitely.

 

[herman]

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

This is the crux of the issue for many news outlets in general, let alone sports sections, but they tend to be better equipped to handle it (actual journalism). I don't see The Athletic tackling it systematically anytime soon with their focus on growth and sustainability. That's the sort of risk people can take after they have tenure.

What The Athletic seems to want to disrupt is the click/ad-revenue driven decision making that has permeated newspapers as they try to find a model to adapt to the way people consume their news/media nowadays. I do hope they can one day get to the sort of independent investigative journalism you're referring to, Nik.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

That's a good point and while the Leafs young team have certainly made it easier to generally have a mostly positive outlook, the Montreal side of The Athletic has seemed to be at least somewhat critical of what is going on there.

That's not really what I meant. Being critical of a team that seems to be on the wrong track, like Montreal, is pretty safe I think. Most habs fans are probably on board with taking shots at Bergevin and the players and while that may cost a reporter some friendliness with sources(and to be sure the Elliotte Friedman/Chris Johnston style "insider" reporting is its own ball of wax) I don't think it would upset a fanbase.

I'm talking about the issues that are really divisive among a fanbase. Take something like stadium financing or, maybe more pointedly, a Patrick Kane-type situation. If you're aiming to sign up all fans, can you take a strong editorial position on an issue that splits a fanbase?

Because for all of the Tech-Bro bluster about disrupting the idea of the traditional newsroom, that is one of the many dilemmas that modern newspapers ran into. Take any suitably divisive issue and either you have a strong editorial take, in which case you risk alienating readers who come down on one side or the other, or you don't in which case you risk alienating people who think an absence of an editorial stance is in a position of its own.

People refusing to read news from an ideological bent(or even perceived bent) that in anyway challenges their own preconceived notions is one of the things that drove news readership down(or splintered it, anyway). I don't know how any media organization can put off that reality indefinitely.

Thanks for elaborating Nik, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

What would be your solution out of curiosity?

Is it possible to grow a business and maintain editorial integrity on the level you mentioned?

If you don't have the time to go through it all, I understand.

 

[Kin]

What The Athletic seems to want to disrupt is the click/ad-revenue driven decision making that has permeated newspapers as they try to find a model to adapt to the way people consume their news/media nowadays. I do hope they can one day get to the sort of independent investigative journalism you're referring to, Nik.

I might be splitting hairs here but I don't really think what I'm talking about is strictly journalism(and it definitely isn't investigative). I think, you know, having an opinion on say the Ray Rice situation or something similar that might crop up in the future isn't really something you need to dig into. It's a complicated question that sports media can't ignore but I don't know you'll ever arrive at a definitive answer through reporting. It's something you have to stick your neck out a little on.

Maybe it's just me but after people got over Mather's desire to crush his enemies and hear the lamentation of their women I think the reaction to the NYT article settled into a slightly more interesting question which is whether or not the guys at the head of the Athletic are really in it for the long haul. There was something about the way they described their business model that made me think of Amazon. The whole "Get as big as you can as fast as you can by cornering a market and worry about profitability later" thing worries people a bit because of the many, many failed attempts to really turn a profit via a subscription model for journalism. I think some people think that it looks like what these guys are doing are building a bubble of of a subscriber base by giving them a ton of content without any ads so that they'll have an attractive asset to sell and let turning the Athletic into a profitable, sustainable venture be an issue for whoever they eventually sell the company to.

Either way, and this is me sticking my neck way out here, I don't think yesterday was great for them.

 

[herman]

I might be splitting hairs here but I don't really think what I'm talking about is strictly journalism(and it definitely isn't investigative). I think, you know, having an opinion on say the Ray Rice situation or something similar that might crop up in the future isn't really something you need to dig into. It's a complicated question that sports media can't ignore but I don't know you'll ever arrive at a definitive answer through reporting. It's something you have to stick your neck out a little on.

Ah, that's my misread and not your over-specificity. If they don't do it on their articles, the authors (at least the ones I follow more closely), definitely do take stands with regards to their subject matter (Lupul, Corrado, Robidas, Leivo, Michalek, Laich) but so far they have been soft topics.

 

[Kin]

Thanks for elaborating Nik, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

What would be your solution out of curiosity?

Is it possible to grow a business and maintain editorial integrity on the level you mentioned?

I think I would have said yes up until recently but post-Gawker I have no idea. Which, for what it's worth, I think was driving a lot of the reaction to the article yesterday. The perception being that one of the few success stories of independent journalism was brought down because a Silicon Valley Billionaire had a vendetta against them and then you had people from a similar background hinting that they doing this with an adversarial approach to other outlets was always going to ruffle feathers.

I guess I still think you can start and grow a journalism venture based on good work but where I have doubts is whether you can grow it at a rate that would please venture capital firms. To the extent that it's sustainable is anyone's guess. Like I said to Herman though, yesterday's article really made me question whether long term sustainability is really the goal for the people in charge right now.

But that said they seem to be selling a product some people want for a price those people are willing to pay so...enjoy the ride I suppose. Grantland wasn't ultimately sustainable but it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Kin]

TSN has cancelled The Reporters which is sad for me. I haven't watched the show in a while and I don't think it was ever as good as ESPN's The Sports Reporters(mainly because they kept Steve Simmons around) but guys like Hodge, Farber, Arthur and some others were good and it used to be a pretty regular part of my Sunday mornings.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/925393564544090112

Colby of the House Armstrong, First of His Name, the Retired Hockey Player, Analyst of Hockey at Sportsnet Ontario, Breaker-downer of Game Tape, and Knower of Jon Snow.