MLB Journalism

[JimH5]

Milwaukee is too small to allow our beat writers to get testy in m opinion. I don't think they can afford to tick of the Brewers management.

 

I think there is something to that. The Brewers are big advertisers in the Journal-Sentinel, so they might not take kindly to an overly aggressive writer. There is also something to the local fanbase that doesn't like to see negative stuff about local teams. Other markets have room for that kind of media.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Milwaukee is too small to allow our beat writers to get testy in m opinion. I don't think they can afford to tick of the Brewers management.

 

What do these guys do that people can't already find out through other sources anyway? Are you really being any kind of a journalist if your post game questions are "Tough game, looks like you struggled to score runs" or "Good win, seemed like the pitcher threw a good game today."

 

The majority of clickbait web material is sourced by real reporters. They lift stories from actual journalists and offer click baity hot takes.

 

Just for example, some reporter asks a question and gets Randy Moss to say "I play when I wanna play." Colin Cowherd takes that and churns it into 2 hours of material with GMs and agents and retired ex players sounding off. But it still all starts with a reporter asking the question.

 

On a smaller scale, BrewCrewBall or some other place like that takes Counsell defending his use of Hader and turns it into a 1500-word analysis of whether he is right or wrong. Same type of content development, but it still all starts with a reporter asking a seemingly stupid question.

[Samurai Bucky]

The majority of clickbait web material is sourced by real reporters. They lift stories from actual journalists and offer click baity hot takes.

 

Just for example, some reporter asks a question and gets Randy Moss to say "I play when I wanna play." Colin Cowherd takes that and churns it into 2 hours of material with GMs and agents and retired ex players sounding off. But it still all starts with a reporter asking the question.

 

On a smaller scale, BrewCrewBall or some other place like that takes Counsell defending his use of Hader and turns it into a 1500-word analysis of whether he is right or wrong. Same type of content development, but it still all starts with a reporter asking a seemingly stupid question.

This doesn't only apply to sports journalism, but journalism as a whole. You can see it with mainstream media outlets being driven by an agenda as opposed to getting facts. I don't want to go down that path, but I think it could apply to baseball.

 

Facts can be spun to push a certain agenda. "Out-getters? What in the heck are those? It sounds like a first grader talking about playground ball. Out-getters... geesch!!!!" Then, when the W's started piling up, a writer can do one of a few things: 1. Write about something else; or 2: do some analysis to see why it is working.

 

All in all, I truly believe that Journalism is nowhere near the quality craft it was before the Internet became a pillar of our lives. How many times do we see misspellings, wrong pictures, or bush-league headlines? Time to market is very small that shortcuts on time and personnel are made resulting in a crappier product.

 

It is almost like being a meteorologist...

[homer]

I think part of the issue with all journalism is that there are too many outlets for news. Used to be you had your local paper, your three local news stations, and maybe some coverage on the local radio. Now you've got the papers, the local tv stations, all sports national radio, all sports local radio, multiple sports channels on cable tv, websites, blogs, etc. etc. There isn't enough news to fill all of that space so you have to do outrageous and/or obnoxious things to get attention.

[Thurston Fluff]

My only complaint about Haudricourt is that his writing is too friendly to the Brewers team and ownership. He's always quick to explain things from the team's perspective and he'll give them a pass even when they have erred.

 

Otherwise, he's a quality writer with a good understanding of the game and he seems like a fine man. He has been on the beat for many years, and is good at connecting today's game to earlier eras.

 

That part really doesn't bother me. I can make up my own mind if they're right if given accurate information. He does that pretty well.

[The stache]

My only complaint about Haudricourt is that his writing is too friendly to the Brewers team and ownership. He's always quick to explain things from the team's perspective and he'll give them a pass even when they have erred.

 

Otherwise, he's a quality writer with a good understanding of the game and he seems like a fine man. He has been on the beat for many years, and is good at connecting today's game to earlier eras.

 

^ This.

 

I don't know if it's an issue with MLB reporting, or just emblematic of journalism as a whole in the year 2019. Sadly, it seems to me that news reporting has become more about web traffic and revenue, and far less about things like factual accuracy, and integrity.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The majority of clickbait web material is sourced by real reporters. They lift stories from actual journalists and offer click baity hot takes.

 

Just for example, some reporter asks a question and gets Randy Moss to say "I play when I wanna play." Colin Cowherd takes that and churns it into 2 hours of material with GMs and agents and retired ex players sounding off. But it still all starts with a reporter asking the question.

 

On a smaller scale, BrewCrewBall or some other place like that takes Counsell defending his use of Hader and turns it into a 1500-word analysis of whether he is right or wrong. Same type of content development, but it still all starts with a reporter asking a seemingly stupid question.

This doesn't only apply to sports journalism, but journalism as a whole. You can see it with mainstream media outlets being driven by an agenda as opposed to getting facts. I don't want to go down that path, but I think it could apply to baseball.

 

Facts can be spun to push a certain agenda. "Out-getters? What in the heck are those? It sounds like a first grader talking about playground ball. Out-getters... geesch!!!!" Then, when the W's started piling up, a writer can do one of a few things: 1. Write about something else; or 2: do some analysis to see why it is working.

 

All in all, I truly believe that Journalism is nowhere near the quality craft it was before the Internet became a pillar of our lives. How many times do we see misspellings, wrong pictures, or bush-league headlines? Time to market is very small that shortcuts on time and personnel are made resulting in a crappier product.

 

It is almost like being a meteorologist...

 

A lot of copy editing is outsourced to India to people who are ESL. I wish that was a joke, but it isn't.

[Samurai Bucky]

The majority of clickbait web material is sourced by real reporters. They lift stories from actual journalists and offer click baity hot takes.

 

Just for example, some reporter asks a question and gets Randy Moss to say "I play when I wanna play." Colin Cowherd takes that and churns it into 2 hours of material with GMs and agents and retired ex players sounding off. But it still all starts with a reporter asking the question.

 

On a smaller scale, BrewCrewBall or some other place like that takes Counsell defending his use of Hader and turns it into a 1500-word analysis of whether he is right or wrong. Same type of content development, but it still all starts with a reporter asking a seemingly stupid question.

This doesn't only apply to sports journalism, but journalism as a whole. You can see it with mainstream media outlets being driven by an agenda as opposed to getting facts. I don't want to go down that path, but I think it could apply to baseball.

 

Facts can be spun to push a certain agenda. "Out-getters? What in the heck are those? It sounds like a first grader talking about playground ball. Out-getters... geesch!!!!" Then, when the W's started piling up, a writer can do one of a few things: 1. Write about something else; or 2: do some analysis to see why it is working.

 

All in all, I truly believe that Journalism is nowhere near the quality craft it was before the Internet became a pillar of our lives. How many times do we see misspellings, wrong pictures, or bush-league headlines? Time to market is very small that shortcuts on time and personnel are made resulting in a crappier product.

 

It is almost like being a meteorologist...

 

A lot of copy editing is outsourced to India to people who are ESL. I wish that was a joke, but it isn't.

You mean like this?