Thoughts On A Fan's Relationship With The Media

Great work, Karina.

Agreed. Sometimes you need to be the better person if you want to improve matters, even if the other party hasn’t necessarily earned it.

As a follow-up to the Falconer18 v. McKenzie story:

Falconer18 did have a team source. It’s not as good as one he used to have but, like some local reporters, he trusted it and, for a first time, ran with the story. It turned out to be wrong and that’s life.

The whole problem arose, from my understanding of the back and forth, because McKenzie had JUST hung up the phone with Lombardi and saw a number of tweets (including one Mr. Eklund) about the team being close to a deal and he quashed it.

I was a jerk about it but it’s interesting that:
a. He didn’t just say he spoke with Lombardi.
b. He doesn’t squash other rumours with as much gusto.

I was definitely a jerk because I thought he was unfairly piling on but I was the only person right about the Cormier/Kovalchuk trade thanks to some community help :smug:

I think you’re seeing a blurring of lines. What Damien Cox may say on twitter may not get onto the Star’s website. News agencies employ editors for a reason. The problem with facebook or twitter is that they can be operated outside the realm of an editor, even though someone may be using those outlets to break stories, etc. Incidents like the one with McKenzie or Brady will become less common as those individuals and others in their industry realize that even though new media outlets like twitter are great for breaking news, there can be consequences due to the interaction they provide. You may see journalists limited to solely using twitter to break news, and not to interact with their audience.

My only thought (probably ever) is that with instant uneditted interaction with MSM, we as fans, readers, bloggers, contributors, etc etc. need to remember that despite all indications that contradict it, MSM are humans too. Like Karina said, eons of criticism deflected by editors and employers are gone, both ways. If you give me sarcastic crap and vile all day, best believe I’ll snap back sooner or later.

If there’s ever going to be a solid opportunity to develop the groundwork to a two way relationship, with further insight and access, it’s now. The great divide is fading. How we react on information is adapting daily. I don’t believe this means we can’t challenge facts or confront opinions, it just means that if you get in a Sens_Suck-esque rage over an article/comment, lose the anger and ask a solid followup question.

Let’s build the link, before idiots and mouthbreathers ruin it with the more likely stupidity.

I think, for the most part, you’re looking at a generational issue. What drives me nuts about a lot of traditional media sports coverage is that there’s a concerted effort to avoid looking like “just a fan.” If a Cox biography ever hits the shelves, I would not be surprised if it revealed that he proofs every article to make sure there’s nothing in it that might give the reader the idea that he actually likes hockey.

The newer crop of sports media folks who “get it” – I guess Bill Simmons is the icon here, Bruce Arthur from the Post is a good local example – all show, for lack of a better term, “fan cred.” A big part of that is a willingness to get in the same arguments with us that we have in our living rooms when we’re watching the game with our buddies. It’s probably not a good business idea to call your readers retards, but I do like that there is a growing crop of media people who will actually have the conversation with you, even if they don’t always go about it in the best of ways. I think things get better when they start becoming the norm instead of the exception.

First, nice work. Good on you for acknowledging your own immoderate reaction to your run-in with Brady. That shows a lot of maturity and class.

Second, I agree that there’s a deep cultural change at work on both sides in this dynamic. As you point out , the MSM writers aren’t used to getting unmediated, instantaneous feedback (some of it laced with profanity and ridiculous ad hominem attacks), at least not from anybody who isn’t named “William Houston.” For “our” part, as fans, I think we have to respect the pro writers who choose to make themselves available to us in forms like Twitter, and – as you suggest – make the best use of it to try and help them deliver the kind of content that we are interested in. The challenge is not to take advantage of the access that we have obtained to them and behave like a bunch of anonymous assholes hell bent on spewing nothing but insults and vitriol.

That’s sometimes a challenge; I know, because for some reason I follow @simmonssteve.

I think the reason we get along so well with James Mirtle is that he is obviously a fan of the game, and it comes through in his work. The same is true – to a lesser extent, perhaps – with both Brady and Bob McKenzie. I think our interaction with MSM “personalities” – guys like Damien Cox and Steve Simmons – may be more difficult because as a result of their previous work, we don’t perceive them to be fans, but rather as at least periodically stirring up shit for the sake of it because their livelihood demands it.

That if I post enough comments on here, I will also me asked to write for this site.

GO LEAFS GO.

If you’re a professional media member and you’re using Twitter to break current news, it becomes an extension of your media platform and should be used accordingly.

You wouldn’t act like a petulant child in a column, and if people read your Twitter for a source of current information, then it carries the same standards and it’s simply unprofessional to act like a petulant child when responding directly to readers.

MSM as a whole needs to lose this collective chip on their shoulders and start interacting with the public on level ground. We can access so much information without them that they need to provide us with a legitimate reason to maintain interest in them. The current standard leaves much to be desired.

The dog ate my homework. But the mailbag will rise again.

I don’t know when.

I’m one of the credentialed blogs for the Washington Capitals, and this was an extremely interesting read for me today, not to mention a welcome diversion from all the hang-wringing going on .

In fact, there’s something of a twitter war going on now between the team, old media and new media about Mike Green’s decision to not face the press today, which is a tangent to your discussion here.

I think, generally, MSM (and national MSM, in particular) is still pretty territorial when it comes to this arena. and rightly so, i suppose. they’ve worked their entire career to get the contacts and access they have, then bloggers and twitters all the sudden are jumping down their throats. it’s a lot easier to remain generic and not have to face criticism that to espouse opinion on twitter and have to “face the music”.

you’re correct on the biggest point though, and that’s the fact that internet-based media is only going to continue to grow, and someday—maybe sooner than anyone wants or realizes—will be the primary place for everyone to get their sports news, commentary and analysis.

The coverage of the Final by Oilers fans was light years ahead of what I could get from the sites listed above and on the news.

Completely agree with that point Karina. That was the first time I started reading hockey blogs.

Great article. I’d add some comments about the failure of some (not all) blogs from the Vancouver media but I know the PPP audience knows what I’m getting at already.

Excellent work, Karina.

this has nothing to do with my inclusion I swear
seriously it was well written

I think pre-internet the MSM was a much more valuable source of information. I am old enough to remember when I had to go to a library or open up an encyclopedia to do some serious research for a school project.

20+ years ago access to information was much more limited then now, and ignorance was commonplace. The majority of people just didn’t have enough information to be able to come up with cogent theories and opinions. The MSM controlled the information and therefore had the power to influence the thoughts and opinions of its readership.

Their relevance is fast becoming marginalized now that so many people have access to information and the gap of knowledge between the MSM and the online hockey community is fast dwindling.

I believe some of this arrogance and condescension stems from the fear that they could possibly be the last in their generation to have any sort of advantage over the ‘common fan’. I put that in quotations because anyone who spends as much time as we do reading, watching and discussing hockey are obviously not common.

The stigma of ‘some fool with internet access’ from the MSM attached to bloggers is sad and outdated. Like all groups of people (including main stream media) there are those who are good at what they do and those who are bad at what they do.

I think we need to deal with prejudice (on both sides) and start dealing with each other as peers – perhaps not equal as far as sources and contacts – but if we had access to the information they do, who’s to say we couldn’t do a better job disseminating that information and presenting it in a way that has merit and substance.

Again, well done Karina and rec’d

You’ve outdone yourself with this one, Karina. Excellent work.

Twitter continues to change the game; I don’t use RSS feed much anymore, my Google Reader, because of Twitter. I’ve got it on my phone, and it’s just so much easier.

While I concur that the average sports page reader is moving away from the MSM for their sports coverage, I feel like it’s not so much “MSM” they’re moving away from as TRADITIONAL media sources.

The Newspaper is quickly losing ground to internet pages as far as textual analysis sources go. Yahoo! Sports is a prime example. These were basically the media sources that amounted to “early adopters” of the blogging paradigm. Television networks also hopped on early with the idea of streaming content, and added the blogging to their repetoire soon after. EPSN, TSN, Sportsnet, Comcast, etc. the landscape changed and they jumped into the fray quite quickly.

The main issue for the newspaper industry has been access to sources. They’ve always had to compete with television, and the like, but competing with bloggers was a whole new ball game. In Canada the idea of a hockey blogger competing with the access of the likes of the key beat writers for the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, La Presse, or any of the other dailies seemed laughable at first. To most of the holdovers from the previous era the whole concept of having to take bloggers seriously was like an idiotic joke.

This is where the non-traditional hockey markets, and the smaller market teams come into play. In cities where hockey is desperate for coverage of ANY sort, they will actively seek out bloggers and internet interest, engendering positive interactions with the writers that show an interest in their product. That’s why blogs in areas such as Nashville, Atlanta, San Jose, Colorado, and the like, have done reasonably well as far as access goes. The teams want more media coverage than they’re getting, and they aren’t ENTIRELY opposed to the concept of increasing access.

In Toronto that access has never been all that easy to obtain, and the only bloggers that appeared to be gaining serious traction happened to be those who also happened to work for a traditional media outlet.

How often can the hockey world say that the non-traditional markets are helping to lead the way on something?

I don’t think it happens that often.

I’m still not on twitter and the whole idea of it seems kind of weird to me.

That being said, I can see it’s purpose… I’d just find it amazingly distracting and I can’t focus on it regularly enough to make it worthwhile.

I’m coaching a team at the Ontario Ball Hockey Association Provincial High School Tournament…

we are going to get destroyed… it’s kind of depressing knowing that going in.

I’ll still write a posting about it though.

This is an excellent post.

I certainly use this site as my #1 source for Leafs news since I joined, and through this site I’ve found and enjoyed many other excellent hockey blogs, Leaf-centric and otherwise.

I do still sometimes seek and read content online from more traditional MSM sources… old habits die hard, I suppose, and I’m from the age group that kind of straddles the pre-internet era and the age of Twitter et. al., so it seems more complete to me to keep up on both instead of using one source to the exclusion of the other.

I think it’s becoming clear to many serious hockey fans everywhere that many blogs/bloggers now rival, if not exceed, their MSM counterparts in terms of both breaking news and providing in-depth analysis that more and more fans are demanding. Part of the reason is the limitations imposed on MSM reporters by the media themselves; time and space constraints in newspapers and television do not lend themselves to deep insight.

But I also think there are two other strong factors in play. One, the MSM was and largely still is not used to the extra competition from bloggers. Before, reporters knew they were pretty much the only source of info for fans to access for their favourite teams. Instead of using this knowledge to spur them on to provide a better service to fans, it caused most of them to get stodgy, unimaginative and, frankly, just damn lazy. We’ve seen many instances where this has manifested itself in articles or TV pieces with a lack of research, inconsistencies and just plain ridiculous mistakes. This has spurred many bloggers to fill in these gaps that the MSM either can’t or won’t fill themselves.

The other factor is the passion of both the bloggers involved and their subscribers and contributors. These people are fans. They love their team deeply, have passion that for various reasons has been bred out of some members of the media, and have become frustrated with the weaknesses perceived in the MSM coverage. And so, with no outlet to express their viewpoints, analyze the stats to attempt to prove or disprove their gut feelings, or to just crack jokes and show the lighter side of their sport and their fandom, they created their own. Not all blogs are good, but many are excellent, and they provide a place for fans to get their news and analysis, and to come together to discuss and debate their passion in a way they never could before.

Throwing Twitter in the mix definitely adds both pros and cons to the situation. The immediacy of breaking news on Twitter is liberating and groundbreaking, but accuracy can initially be a concern (though this concern can be negated based both on the reputation of the person breaking the report and the number of other sources that corroborate the initial source). The other concern, as Karina has detailed, is the temptation to engage in petty sniping from both sides of the MSM-blogger/fan divide. It’s understandable that emotions on both sides can run high, as bloggers and fans are passionate about their team, and MSM media sources can resent having their credibility questioned by those who are not officially in the business. As with all other forms of communication, taking a deep breath before posting something inflammatory and keeping respect of all sides in mind will help the process, and should help each side gain the respect of the other.

Anyway, great post Karina, thanks for doing this.

Great stuff.

I’m not sure I want to exhaust myself and the readers here about the changing game in media and accessibility, especially in light of social media, but I will say that the biggest issue facing MSM is increased amalgamations. As an example, many sports departments are shutting down for costs purposes, which ESPN has conveniently set-up local chapters of their network, ie. ESPN Dallas, ESPN Los Angeles. I think having less varied coverage is really dangerous in terms of checks and balances when it comes to information.

I’m very curious to see how blogs and online news sources will sort out their own dilemmas in not only legitimacy, but handling critiques and evaluations to deliver high-quality “objective” information. Are readers enough to ensure a democratic, multi-faceted exchange of information over a largely uncontrollable medium like the internet?

I joined PPP because I’m sick of mainstream media bias. Howard Berger, Steve Simmons, Damien Cox,…practically the whole mainstream Toronto media believes the Leafs will never do anything right and their Cup drought will last forever. Too much pessimism without much realism.

…and the media of other cities will do the same just because it’s so much fun. When Montreal or Ottawa or Vancouver fails, their media will appease them with “at least we were better than the Leafs.” Sorry guys, this is not the goal here. Frankly these days it’s not that hard to do that, so don’t hold it up as though it were some big accomplishment ;)

The media in Ottawa and Vancouver are big shills. They’ll always talk about how awesome the Senators/Canucks are and how they have such bright futures…even when they aren’t/don’t. Montreal is critical of the Habs when they lose…but when they win, they must be going to win the Stanley Cup. Might as well plan the parade Habs fans. lol.

Mainstream media is too cliche-driven. When I know what you’re going to say without even reading it or even before you say it, what’s the point?

On Pension Plan Puppets everything is real (or at least plausible) and reasonable. If the Leafs are going to suck, at least it’ll be for a better reason than that they haven’t won in 43 years. And if there’s reason for optimism, great! But it doesn’t mean a parade should be planned…nor are the Leafs definitely going to screw this one up just like every other time.

It’s just a better read over here. And often it’s even fun…especially when we make fun of MSM cliches or their predictable answers to everything that didn’t quite happen this time.

Excellent post. I hope this gets read by the people who need to read it, if you know what I mean.

One classic scenario that I can think of is when one of the MSM guys will bitch someone out who they think is insulting them, but is really on their side. I’ve seen McKenzie do it once—it stemmed from some confusion over which tweet someone was replying to (which is easily decipherable information when you just click the “in reply to” link).

The other thing that MSM guys get wrong ALL the time is when to reply and when to retweet. Sometimes I honestly wonder if they realize that it gets sent to all of their followers when they post something, put “RT @[user]” and then the original message. For instance, why does this need to be sent to everyone who follows Bob (interestingly enough, this tweet is also an example of someone who’s taking Bob’s side getting insulted by him)?

These problems obviously aren’t unique to McKenzie. There are a few people that I’ve unfollowed, and thus given less traffic, due to their ineptitude clogging up my timeline. Bah.

Who wants to help me find the necessary connections to gain access to the photo archives of the Toronto Maple Leafs? I have doubts they would allow a blogger to access what must be an incredible collection and post portions of it on the web due to copyright issues – but I sure would love to start a correspondence with someone and at least make an attempt.