With his comments at a charity auction he was attending last week, Bob Costas brought back to the forefront the debate between bloggers and journalists.
But is there a debate?
For some reason, each time it comes up I can’t help but remember the Scouts vs Stats discussion and cringe, because I still don't understand what the deal was in this case. Both bring different elements to the table and both are essential components to a serious baseball organization. Do you still have any doubts about that?
When it comes to bloggers and journalists, it's hard to figure out what the fight is all about, but let's try anyway.
For as long as there have professional baseball games (in the interest of keeping it simple, I'll talk about baseball, but it applies to all bloggers and journalists), there has been someone to cover them and relay the info to a news-thirsty public.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the teams paid the journalists and expected a 'positive' coverage in return. Today, media organizations provide that coverage, but are in the breaking news business, to be the leaders in their respective fields. Journalists now dig deeper than ever to be on top of a scandal and whether we like or not, that's the way it should be. Obviously, some journalists go too far, but that's for another post.
On the other hand, we have baseball franchises that are now increasingly being responsible for their own media relations and reporting, by building up Regional Sports Network (RSN) and taking the matter into their own hands. That way, you can control the information for at least one outlet, which is often the most popular one.
When it comes to bloggers, it seems the word alone has a bad resonance. You can mention the likes of David Pinto and John Brattain and it's ok. But once the word 'blogger' is uttered, you lose any sense of seriousness that was there when you mentioned the blogger's name alone.
Why?Well, journalists have a job and the way they see it is we are taking it from them and it shouldn't be that way. In the journalist's bible, it is probably written:
"Those that try to shape the opinion of the masses and haven't been to school for it, should be repressed and forever frowned upon"
Obviously, I made that up, but you can't help to feel a bit irritated when comments like the ones below are made and you figure out they were serious.
- ''I understand with newspapers struggling and hoping to hold on to, or possibly expand their audiences, I understand why they do what they do,'' Costas said. 'But it's one thing if somebody just sets up a blog from their mother's basement in Albuquerque and they are who they are, and they're a pathetic get-a-life loser, but now that pathetic get-a-life loser can piggyback onto someone who actually has some level of professional accountability and they can be comment No. 17 on Dan Le Batard's column or Bernie Miklasz' column in St. Louis. That, in most cases, grants a forum to somebody who has no particular insight or responsibility. Most of it is a combination of ignorance or invective.''
What bothers Costas -- and he's not alone -- is Internet and talk radio commentary that ``confuses simple mean-spiritedness and stupidity with edginess. Just because I can call someone a name doesn't mean I'm insightful or tough and edgy. It means I'm an idiot.
``It's just a high-tech place for idiots to do what they used to do on bar stools or in school yards, if they were school yard bullies, or on men's room walls in gas stations. That doesn't mean that anyone with half a brain should respect it.'' - Bob Costas
- "And when you look at the internet business, what's dangerous about it is that people who are clearly unqualified get to disseminate their piece to the masses. I respect the journalism industry, and the fact of the matter is ...someone with no training should not be allowed to have any kind of format whatsoever to disseminate to the masses to the level which they can. They are not trained. Not experts..."
"...Therefore, there's a total disregard, a level of wrecklessness that ends up being a domino effect. And the people who suffer are the common viewers out there and, more importantly, those in the industry who haven't been fortunate to get a radio or television deal and only rely on the written word. And now they've been sabotaged. Not because of me. Or like me. But because of the industry or the world has allowed the average joe to resemble a professional without any credentials whatsoever." - Stephen A. Smith
- The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler's time on earth–I'm sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called "Pamphleteers." They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: ". . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . ." - Bill Conlin
That's enough, you get the idea.
In his clarification to Deadspin, Costas distanced himself from the comments and actually pointed to Barry Jackson, the author of the piece that started it all, at fault for not reporting the observations correctly.
All right. So did the Miami Herald story quote you correctly?
Yes, the quotes were accurate, but it didn't have everything I said. Barry Jackson [the reporter] is an good reporter, but that wasn't everything I said. He, and everyone who was at the [charity auction], knew that I wasn't condemning everyone.
About the bloggers comments, he then added:
- So, feel free to clarify.
I don't have any problem at all with the mainstream media being challenged or supplemented by new media. No entity has a monopoly over good writing from a valid point of view. In that sense, the more the merrier. In fact, many bloggers, on numerous subjects, sports included, are talented, humorous and bring fresh perspectives.
My commentary was aimed solely at a portion of Internet sports discourse, an unfortunately large portion, that consists of nothing more than potshots, ad hominem arguments, ignorance and invective. No one who is familiar with the general tone of public discourse, whether it be sports, politics, whatever, can honestly deny that much. It comes from that direction.
I was absolutely not saying that most or all bloggers were losers. It just seems so often that commenters use insults in the place of arguments. Is there a lot out there that's also well-written? Or course. But forgive me for not placing the exact same value on an comment on a political blog that I would to something said by Ted Koppel. Sure, they have the equal value in a voting booth. But you have to assume that if you've done something reasonable well for an extended period of time, you have some notion of what you're talking about.
- So you don't think anyone who writes a blog or comments online is a "get-a-life loser?"
Some have inferred that I have this elitist view, and that I think only people who have been somehow "certified" have the right to comment on sports. It shouldn't be confused with somehow being superior. If you opened up anything to large numbers of participants, you'd find some real gems in there. But you'd have a lot of muck to sift through. I do think newspapers' comment boards need to have the same sort of standard they'd have for a letter to an editor. It's possible they just don't have the manpower for that, though. I do think I made a good point [in the Herald story], but it's only part of what I think.
Cool, so everything's perfect now? Unfortunately, no.
The point I made in a previous post on Baseball Digest Daily is that it's ironic that a reporter (Jackson) trying to convey a message about bloggers being irresponsible and not certified is in fact not reporting the story as it should be told. Isn't it fantastic?!
Fact is, we are all (journalists and bloggers) vying for the same thing here, which is recognition for our work and the possibility to get paid for doing what we love.
No one can deny a journalist's love for his work, because they have a family to support and the travel brought on by following a professional club puts a lot of pressure on that kind of life. They have deadlines, pressure and cannot always cover what they'd prefer. I have a lot of respect for them and for Bob Costas for that matter. I've always loved his work and I've heard a lot of good things about him when it comes to dealing with fans and fellow reporters who wanted an interview.
On the other hand, we have the bloggers who are rarely paid and mainly write as a hobby, because they simply love their team or sport and think they can bring something to the table with their opinions and analysis.
That the reporters feel the need to put down bloggers is understandable when you think that we are taking more and more place on the web and in every fan's life.
The part I don't understand is where it is written that the field was always to be reserved for certified journalists? As we have seen in this post, certified hasn't exactly brought up the kind of rhetoric expected from a professional.
We at Baseball Digest Daily are in a situation where Joe Hamrahi's respect toward and long relations with MLB clubs has given us the privilege of covering teams from the press box and the clubhouse, something every writer on the internet is now working on obtaining, but...
That's where it gets complicated.
What defines a writer that should be allowed into the confines of a stadium and directly speak to the players at any time and one that is not? Tough call, huh?
In a perfect world, everyone would be allowed in there, but that's just not possible. Anybody could start a blog and then ask for press credentials. Unfortunately, that will not happen. If a team was to begin and follow every blog to judge whether or not they should be granted access, it would become a costly affair.
However, when it comes to stating an opinion on any given subject, no license has ever been needed and I hope that's not about to happen. The Us vs Them should become We. In a way, it's already started to happen, because journalists have begun to embraced the quick and easy way an opinion can be published via blogs. It can complement an article or simply serve as another platform to have its message heard. So why is it good enough for them when it's not good enough for us?
Bloggers and reporters could talk at length about bad apples among the two groups, but that doesn't mean the rest isn't worth fighting for. That's divisive and unproductive.
When it comes to bloggers, the word means more things than it should in reality and that's the easiest way to solve the problem; shed the image you have bloggers and start anew.
Oh boy...