To be fair, the Caps have two print guys on the beat who carry off the conventions as well as can be expected. They’re quite good. What’s more interesting to me, however, is, in a relatively short period of time, the meteoric popularity of their online readership for their respective blogs. These readers, like us, might miss a game file or three along the way but daily, sometimes hourly, monitor these guys’ blogs, which often are treasure troves. There, away from the conventions, away from the rigid formula, we go inside the team, inside the sport. There the scribe’s personalized passion for the game at times comes to life. It’s prose with a Budweiser, and they’re buying. Their readers sure are.

Another distinction, perhaps: at times I skim the old media game files, sweeping through the inverted pyramid prose swiftly for any event my eyes on the game didn’t detect. However, I never skim that reporter’s blog files. I suspect I’m not alone in this habit.

Back within the formula, it isn’t always the athlete at fault for the poverty of reflection. If there are 60 questions directed at a hockey team by 14 reporters in 20 minutes of post-game access, irrespective of the city, irrespective of the prestige of the news outlet, I can assure you that 40-plus are of the “Did he or she really just ask that?” variety. Don’t take my word for it. Watch ESPNews and its revolving door rotation of intellect-numbing game pressers. Or if you’re really interested in surveying the limits of Darwin’s Theory, tune in to the Super Bowl presser the Tuesday of game week. That’s George Orwell’s Animal Farm come to life. Some reporters are just plain stupid; many more though are asking questions whose answers feed a script. Gotta file, gotta formulate.

I can assure you that when Greg Wyshynski is in the arena the last thing he’s looking to do is fill his recorder with jock-talk. Chatting with him during a game often is more entertaining than the product we’re there to chronicle. His is a creative mind ever abuzz with unconventional coverage ideas. And this is largely why his blog numbers, be they at Deadspin, the FanHouse, or now Yahoo Sports are the envy of those of every old media outlet in press row.

One of the reasons this “debate,” such as it is, about bloggers and reporters exists is because it itself is an old media convention. Like Andy Rooney, it persists, perpetually. It has a radioactive half life. It’s erroneously conceived, superficially analyzed, and nurtured by a whiff of controversy. Therefore expect it to be around still 24 years from now.

More interesting to me is the embrace of Washington’s hockey bloggers by big media’s online or alternative editions. Rare was the week during this past season that one of us wasn’t excerpted in Washington Post Express. Eric McErlain transitioned from blogging at his groundbreaking site Off Wing Opinion in 2006 to covering the NHL for NBCSports.com last season, and this year he’s doing the same for the Sporting News. Jon Press joined McErlain at AOL Sports last year. Wyshynski of course is a blogging man very much in demand.

Just in the last week I found promo snippets for two of my OFB files slotted into the NHL team pages at Sports Illustrated’s web site. There’s nothing sly or sinister about that — SI needs content for its hockey pages in the offseason, apparently, and they’ve come to regard lil’ ole OFB as a source. Readers who normally wouldn’t know about OFB are, thanks to the big slick mag site, getting a look at us.

Lest you think old media in its new configuration is gobbling up gifted writers and consigning them to the old marching orders know that all of McErlain, Press, and Wyshynski are blogging for their new employers. That appears to have been a business decision by big media.

Each passing week is bringing about a remarkable evolution in information dissemination and consumption, in sports, politics, public policy, you name it — and in the process, in a very healthy way, obliterating the confining limitations of the old guard and its tired old formulas.

Isn’t it great to be a hockey fan today and to possess a healthy appetite for quality coverage and analysis of your team and its sport and to have that appetite nourished by the breadth of new and old media we’re now seeing? Even in the summer. Ahead, more quality voices will get added to the online chorus while the dour defenders of the tired, outdated approach whither and recede. The Revolution continues.

  • BallHype - Hype It Up!
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • Facebook
  • Pownce
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Wikio
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!


Print This Post Print This Post
Posted at 6:35 am. Filed under Blogs, Corey Masisak, Hockey Reading, Internet, Media, Morning cup-a-joe, OFB, Print, Sports Illustrated, Tarik El-Bashir, The Sporting News, Washington Capitals, Washington Post, Washington Post Express, Washington Times.
Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Boudreau Deux?
2008 IIHF World Championship Bracket

18 Comments

  1. SovSport wrote:

    pucks,

    What a post!

    “Get the time of the goals right. Be sure to acknowledge the left winger’s third straight game with a secondary assist. Fatten file with recorded jock-speak filler — irrespective of how mundane, cliche-ridden the reflection.” No comment :)

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:40 am | Permalink
  2. The Peerless wrote:

    Chad is, to put it mildly, a dinosaur. That goes for the Buzz Bissingers of the world, too. But this whole debate is utter nonsense. Whether it is chiseling stone tablets or clacking on a keyboard, all of this is application of thought to medium. Journalists of a certain type are defending a medium that will go the way of stone tablets and papyrus — the printed-on-paper-and-published-once-a-day medium. But there are a fair number of bloggers around these days who seem to think they invented air, too (I haven’t detected this specie among Caps bloggers yet). Both need to get over themselves.

    New technology — moveable type — allowed for thought to be communicated to a broader audience more quickly centruies ago. The typewriter accelerated that, followed by word processing and telecommunications technologies. These days one has it in their grasp to broadcast one’s thoughts almost instantaneously to a limitless audience.

    But that is an issue of medium. The currency of communication is still “thought,” and (as comedian Ron White put it) you can’t fix stupid, whether the thinker is a print journalist or a blogger.

    Some journalists (and I’m thinking primarily of someone like James Mirtle) get it and have one foot planted firmly in traditional journalism with the other planted firmly among the technological tools that cast off the chains of time and schedules. Some bloggers get it in adopting the ethics and practices of journalism while taking advantage of the technological tools available to them.

    I don’t think this is an “either/or” matter for bloggers versus journalists or one becoming the other. Technology has made communication a bit more “egalitarian” — not simply relegated to people with bylines — but it doesn’t discriminate between “bloggers” or “journalists” with respect to the quality of product. That still resides in the nut behind the keyboard. There are a lot of bloggers (as some journalists complain) who write poorly and aren’t as attentive to fact-checking as they perhaps should be. There are a lot of journalists who are lazy in their thinking and who are at least as superficial in their coverage as the bloggers about whom they complain.

    I don’t see this as a revolution, but merely “evolution.” Decades (years?…months?…next week??) from now a new medium will supplant this, and I expect “bloggers” will assume the role print journalists play today.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:10 am | Permalink
  3. The Deuce wrote:

    Yeah, I heard the comment about the Kolzig home sale coming from a blog on the podcast. Made me laugh out loud. Sounded a lot like when the same guy said earlier in the season, “I’ve been hearing a lot of talk that Pothier’s career is in jeopardy. I can tell you I don’t know where they’re getting their information. In fact, I saw Potsy just today.” Only near the end of the year would he admit that the bloggers had it right, and Pothier’s career was indeed in jeopardy. I like Vogs, and I think his stuff is good. Just remember who signs his checks. He has a job to do, and sometimes that job does not include full disclosure.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:42 am | Permalink
  4. Baghdad Bob wrote:

    Kolzig’s home is not for sale.
    Kolzig has sold houses before.
    Kolzig is still a member of the Washington Capitals.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  5. pucksandbooks wrote:

    Peerless, as is your form — insightful, penetrating, thoroughly illuminating. But some “good thinkers” out there still traffic in the largely lifeless formula.

    BaghdadBob: Your next Budweiser’s on me.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:15 am | Permalink
  6. b.orr4 wrote:

    When I heard Vog’s sidekick ” Stretch” say he doesn’t like bloggers, I had to laugh. Is he forgetting that the guy who signs his paycheck is this area’s biggest supporter of the blogging community and also writes a daily blog? I know this kid, as a former collegiate goalie, understands the game of hockey, but listening to his mindless attack on your blog makes me wonder if he has taken one too many pucks to the head. To paraphrase Chad, just because you’ve played the game doesn’t mean you know how to cover it. Keep up the good work guys. When I’m looking for thoughtful analysis, I come here not to the house organ.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink
  7. The Peerless wrote:

    pucksandbooks…

    I absolutely agree with that assessment, and that is a somewhat separate issue in my mind — that of risk and comfort. Journalism is be no means unique in this regard, there being a lot of good, talented folks in any number of occupations who get left sitting (not even standing) by the side of the road because they don’t get outside of their comfort level with respect to what they do.

    They have done things the same way or using the same tools for a long time, and they are comfortable with it. They find it difficult to take the leap into a new dimension. Even the best and brightest can sometimes succumb to this kind of thinking. After all, Bill Gates is said to have remarked in the early ’80’s, “640 bytes [of random access memory] ought to be enough for anybody.” Had he been right (or persisted) in his thinking, we’re not having this “conversation.”

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:21 am | Permalink
  8. SpartyCuse wrote:

    There are good and bad journalists. There are good and bad bloggers. Its up to the consumer to decide. I remember when Rachel (Alexander) Nichols was TWP Caps writer. She was gawd-awful. Errors left and right. Tarik is very good, and I think Jason LaCanfora was the best (plus, he is a Syracuse alum!)

    Some blogs are trash, and others provide great info and insight, like OFB.

    You cant paint all bloggers with a wide brush.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink
  9. Dave's Not Here Man wrote:

    From a quality-of-coverage perspective, I’ll never understand the anti-blog sentiment. Blogging is a free source of publicity (something Leonsis understands) and gets conversations going where newspaper articles generally do not.

    As you point out, Tarik & Corey have terrific blogs themselves that allow them to fill in gaps in their standard post-game articles in entertaining fashion, and sites like OFB provide additional coverage & perspectives. It all benefits the teams/sports covered, right? So good blogging should be encouraged, particularly by the teams who reap the free PR. Generally the Caps do a great job encouraging blogs, but I suppose even Caps folks occasionally bash ‘em for lack of something better to say.

    Unless the comment was just a clever ploy to bring in more Caps Report listeners… ;)

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:34 am | Permalink
  10. SpartyCuse wrote:

    And….with regard to the “bad” bloggers, are they any worse or more damaging than the baffoons who are on the sports talk radio stations? Those morons spew stupidity and hate (not all, but many). But since they are on the air, its not as bad, right?

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 11:35 am | Permalink
  11. Ben wrote:

    Why can’t both “traditional” sports journalism coexist with blogging? None of what is being blogged about is possible without the fact and quote-gathering of beat reporters and the like. I’m no professional, but it seems to me that building relationships with sources is the name of the game for sports journalists, and without some guarantee of objectivity. In the case of the beat reporter, the ethical standards and corporate ownership apply this accountability.

    Doesn’t mean bloggers are incapable of demonstrating responsibility and doing a “better” job than a beat reporter. What I see happening more is journalism being stripped to its bare bones as fact-gathering sources, and the bloggers are providing a larger portion of the meat.

    In case you couldn’t tell I love analogies…and that’s why I love reading blogs!

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
  12. Ben wrote:

    Sorry I didn’t finish a sentence above.

    “I’m no professional, but it seems to me that building relationships with sources is the name of the game for sports journalists, and without some guarantee of objectivity GMs, players, coaches, owners, and other insiders will hesitate to cooperate.”

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
  13. exwhaler wrote:

    As a former journalist, it’s pretty clear why the traditional media would be suspicious of blogging–no editors and a general perference for speed rather than accuracy. Newspaper editors do far more than rewrite or check grammar, spelling, and style–they’re the ones primarily responsible for factchecking, avoiding the pitfalls brought on by time constraints and deadline pressure. In a perfect world, editors are the gatekeepers of ethical reporting. The problem is that the world’s confused.

    Although many blogs are respectable, a large majority are not, and even many respectable ones make questionable decisions justified by the idea that “they’re blogs, not newspapers”–that they’re free from the restaints of traditional publishing. Which in turn validates the critics of blogs, like Chad.

    The ethics of each blog are guided by each individual writer’s whim. While journalists do have standards for their field, much of it outlined by law, bloggers really don’t and haven’t been tested, and with the influence of blogs increasing in all areas of news coverage, journalists are seeing their ethical standards eroding because their bosses want them to compete with the instant reporting of the Internet in general. So, Dan Rather reports on the Killian documents before doing a thorough verification, ruining his reputation and career, and a St. Louis local news station airs fan reactions about Albert Pujols being named in the Mitchell Report, despite the fact that the “leaked” list had been discredited. Newspapers now rely on their websites to get the news out, printing stories that aren’t completed and that they wind up updating throughout the day, inaccuracies be damned (see: Daily News with Avery). A decade ago, those kinds of decisions would have been unthinkable. Those who have dedicated their lives to that profession despise that reality and what wrought it.

    What I find depressing is that journalists are held accountable and criticized deeply for their mistakes, like the lambasting the Daily News took, but the blogging community in general goes unpoliced and unscathed for committing similar missteps. If blogs really wish to obtain the respectablity that traditional news claim to have, then blogs must be run through the same accountablity grinder, something that Eric at Off Wing has brought up time and again.

    Case in point: the false steroid list reported by WNBC. The list was originally published by Deadspin the morning of the Mitchell Report’s release, and was instantly dissected by dozens of well-respected blogs, like Viva el Birdos (the main St. Louis Cardinals blog). That list was discredited within hours of its release, and the television media was raked for jumping all over it. Even though that the site that first published the list was a blog. Even though Deadspin had all the disclaimers that it wasn’t verified, it still printed the original false list and ran a bunch of players’ names through the mud for no justifiable reason.

    That’s what’s changed about news reporting–print it even if we don’t know if it’s right. Just get it out there, and we’ll fix it later. And that’s what’s killing good journalism. It’s rapid rumor rather an honest probing for truth.

    Blogs are becoming important, but they’re becoming important in a haphazard way that, from where I stand, is doing more to undermine thoughtful discourse and proper analysis than anything corporate media can do to deaden the discussion. This “old media v. new media” debate serves no one, and suspicions of and from both mediums need to be disgarded so that the participants can honestly acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each and move on toward better jounalism. Having beat reporters like Tarik and Corey help, but it’s a scattershot method.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
  14. Lisa wrote:

    Apparently some mainstream journalists feel threatened. Hmmm, wonder why that is? Without analyzing the situation too much, I think there’s always room for quality journalism, whether it’s the print variety or blogs. However, I can say without hesitation I’ve learned more about hockey in the last year by reading OFB, Japer’s Rink, etc. than any newspaper. No knock on Tarik (I enjoy Capitals Insider) but he’s just one source of information, and a source that has to work within the constraints of a system. It’s pretty evident bloggers are able to explore a wider range of subjects which leads to even more thoughtful analysis, humor and insight about the game we love. How can that be bad? In the end, there’s a big reservoir of hockey knowledge out there so why not enjoy the range of options available to us and be happy they exist.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
  15. pucksandbooks wrote:

    Lisa, you said it better than I did in this file. And your perspective helped remind me that it’s blog humor that is perhaps one of their more underrated qualities. JP and Greg give the Comedy Centrals writers a run for their money on most days. If you’re not laughing a bit at and with a sport that trumpets mullets in middle age, you’re missing out on the party.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
  16. MulletMan wrote:

    Hey, I think I resemble that remark! Either laugh at or laugh with…but at least your laughing.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
  17. SovSport wrote:

    The change will happen. Like it or not. Just like record and television companies had to deal with and accept napsters and youtubes, the MSM will have to accept bloggers and work with them. Or become ones. I agree with Ted Leonsis that the future is bright for Web 2.0.

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
  18. Puddin_an_Semin wrote:

    I must agree just because you are in MSM doesn’t mean you are good, or that you are reliable. Same goes for bloggers. My philosophy is if something is good, you go back for more, if its not don’t waste my time! Luckily I am blessed to be a fan of a team that has several options for up to the minute information from semi-traditional MSM in Corey and Tarik to blogs like yours. Reading these sites everyday have been part of my daily routine for over a year now, if you and the others were to go away I don’t think I could make it to next season! Thanks and keep up the good work!

    Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*

*



By clicking "Submit" you agree that you have read and will abide by the Comment Policy.