Sports Journalism - Not Your Tradional Style Journalism

For my interview with a journalist I had an email conversation with Patrick Kinahan of 1320 KFAN.  Kinahan is currently has a show with David James on the station in the mornings and writes an online blog for the station's website (see an example of one of his blog posts here). Kinahan has a background as both in broadcast and as a print journalist.

Since 1320 KFAN is a sports station I thought I'd direct my questions more towards sports journalism and the difference between sports journalism and traditional news journalism and I got some very interesting responses.

Like most of us wanting to get into sports journalism, Kinahan said he chose the life of a media member because he wanted, "to be in the sports field, but wasn't good enough to be a player." He broke into the field by "flooding the market with resumes" and eventually he got offers for a television job that paid $3.25/hour and a newspaper job that paid $4.50/hour. He took the newspaper job.

Kinhan defined "good" journalism as telling a story, "in a reliable, accurate manner" and that "credibility is the most important virtue" of "good" journalism.  He said that having worked in television, newspapers he believed that newspapers had the "highest standard" of "good" journalism. Kinahan also said that his current medium, raido "is more of an entertainment medium, and therefore doesn't always - nor is required to - adhere to the principles of good journalism" and that in radio a station serves the community when it reaches its objectives of trying "to provide entertainment and information."

When I asked Kinahan about the differences between sports journalism and traditional news journalism and he said that during his "25 years in the business, sports journalism has evolved into more opinion based." He went on to say that, "the reader/listener already knows the score, so opinion has become more important." He also said that "sports is more about fun." than it is about making a difference and that in his career he has made more of a difference when he wrote more news stories. The example he gave was a story he wrote about a high school athletic director/teacher who was losing his job because of budget cuts at the school. The individual was able to keep his job after the community rallied in support.

And finally he said that students trying to get into the field should "make contacts in the field as early as [they] can," "be willing to do whatever it takes to break into the field," and "Whatever job [they're] in, do [their] best" so they can move up in the business.

I was very grateful to have Patrick Kinahan's input on this subject and think everything he said about journalism and specifically sports journalism was spot on.  I'd also be interested in what everyone else thinks about this subject, so be sure to post your thoughts in the comments.

Google and Twitter Team Up (Well, Kind Of)

Just saw this come up on Twitter from the Huffington Post. Search engine giant, Google just announced they have reach an agreement with social media site, Twitter, that will allow Google to include Twitter updates in the search results.

Google's VP of Search Products and User Experience, Marissa Mayer, wrote this in a blog post on the official Google blog:

"At Google, our goal is to create the most comprehensive, relevant and fast search in the world. In the past few years, an entirely new type of data has emerged — real-time updates like those on Twitter have appeared not only as a way for people to communicate their thoughts and feelings, but also as an interesting source of data about what is happening right now in regard to a particular topic.

Given this new type of information and its value to search, we are very excited to announce that we have reached an agreement with Twitter to include their updates in our search results. We believe that our search results and user experience will greatly benefit from the inclusion of this up-to-the-minute data, and we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months. That way, the next time you search for something that can be aided by a real-time observation, say, snow conditions at your favorite ski resort, you'll find tweets from other users who are there and sharing the latest and greatest information."

 I'm curious to see how this changes the way search information comes up in a search when Google gets it up and going in the next few months.  Who knows...you may even be seeing your own Twitter updates coming up on Google.

Trusting Journalists?

In a recent poll conducted by Time magazine, Time asked Americans who they trusted most behind the news desk.  The results might surprise you. Edging out Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Charlie Gibson was (drum roll please) Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. Thats right, 44 percent of America trusts comedian Jon Stewart more than any of the network news anchors.  Stewart (seen below) hosts a satirical news parody, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central Monday through Thursday.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Intro - Balloon Boy Is Safe
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

So what does that mean for journalists? It means we have a problem we need to fix.

Is it a problem with journalists and journalism itself or a problem with the audience? My guess is its a little bit of both, but its up to the journalists to earn the trust back.

And how do we do that? Well we have to start doing what we profess to do and actually following what we learn in journalism class. The things we have been taught are the basics of journalism. Things like first loyalty to citizens, truth, objectivity, independence, etc.

Will Newspapers Survive the "Free to Fee" Transisition?

I recently read this AP article on StarTribune.com about many newspapers making the decision to charge for on-line content this Fall and made me wonder whether or not such a transition will be successful?

In general, newspapers have not charged for online content (with the exception of archived articles) and readers, including myself, have grown accustomed to free information available at the click of the mouse. So how will these readers respond?

This is a very difficult question to answer, but a very important one.  I can't speak for other readers, but I personally would not pay for a newspapers site online with all the other sources out there including broadcast news websites and the local television newscasts that I don't have to pay a dime for.

With that said I think there is a way newspapers could make money through subscribers without pushing away those people who visit their websites for free content and that is to charge only for in depth content that a subscriber could not find anywhere else.

To illustrate a point I'll refer to a website I visit often...ESPN.com. I visit ESPN.com on a daily basis and get free access to the usual content that I could find on nearly any other major sports website (the ESPN.com writer may have a little different take on the content, but for the most part its the same).  I do not; however, have access to ESPN.com's most unique and in depth content. To get access to that content I would have to subscribe at $6.50/month for month to month, $3.33/month for a year or $2.50/month for two years. That subscription would get me access to all ESPN.com's content and a hard copy of ESPN: the magazine.

Newspapers could follow a similar model that would entice their most devoted readers and news junkies to pay for in depth content while not alienating their casual readers.  This also eliminates some of the risk of web traffic to a paper's site dropping off substantially when they convert to paid content making it more attractive for ad sales.

I'm interested in what everyone else thinks about this subject, so make sure to leave your comments.

What is Journalism?

The profession of journalism is in the midst of a transformation due to the growth of digital media in the last few years...Newspapers border on the brink of extinction, everyday more and more voices call for the audiences attention through blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and the public trust of the media continues to decline, but do all these challenges facing the profession of journalism mean the definition of journalism itself has changed? or even needs to be adapted?

The answer to those questions is no. Journalism as a principle was created to correctly inform and protect society from misinformation that may be distributed, but corrupt organizations (whether government or private) that has the power to control the flow of information. Over the course of history some have tried to corrupt the principle of journalism by calling themselves journalists and embellishing stories (e.g. Yellow Journalism) or serving biased interests, but that has not and will never be journalism.

Journalism today has seen drastic changes in the way it is delivered to its audience, but the principle remains the same. Those individuals who seek out true information and credible report it to an audience are journalists and practice journalism. Those who don't follow this pattern no matter their skill as a writer...they are still just story tellers.