QOTD: Network vs. Cable

“In terms of the so-called movement from broadcast to cable, that [distinction] is archaic.’’

-John Wildhack, ESPN’s executive VP of programming and acquisitions.

There has been some talk over the weekend about the television performances of college football bowl over the New Years’ weekend. Part of that conversation has been about the move from networks to cable’s ESPN for the biggest games on the college football postseason slate. Newsday’s Neil Best pointed out, after conversations with the Worldwide Leader, that maybe we give to much weight to this difference these days.


Sports Prove the Long Tail

Really outstanding piece by Jason Fry today over at the National Sports Journalism Center (Indiana University’s finest journalism contribution). In it, he argues that the sports desks around the country have adapted to digital a lot faster than most of their reporter colleagues…thanks to the unique nature of sports. Among all of his points, I think the one that serves the most utility is the nature of sports fandom and the quirkiness of sports information create an entire industry for the online world:

The Long Tail Of Fans A3 Poster

“There’s ample demand for sports news, and from the beginnings of the consumer Web, sports fans used the Web to get information they couldn’t get from their local paper. Some of them were out-of-town fans who wanted more than a box score or 15 seconds on SportsCenter. Others wanted more than they could get from their town’s single paper. Lots of them wanted to talk about the last game – or the next one – with other fans. Sports departments have been finding new ways to meet this demand for nearly two decades now, giving them a head start over other departments.”

All of the points are excellent, and I really think it’s one of the best pieces I’ve seen today, but I’m focusing on this notion because, to me, it’s what really solidifies the place that digital has in telling the sports story. For a long time, the best we had to help the long displaced fans was expensive cable packages, sports bars and satellite dish networks. Digital bridges the gap for even the most obscurely placed fan, helping not only bring them content, but helping find a community of fans wherever they may be.

My go-to example has always been the college football message boards. Trust me, even those teams that don’t have the rabid fan bases still have populated and vocal communities dedicated to their teams. That’s the long tail at it’s finest: because there may not be someone on your continent who cares about some lower division school or club, but trust me, you can find them on online.

Hopefully Fry is right that the sports departments are following this. That’s what they need to do to keep up, because if they won’t serve the online local community, someone else will.

Photo (cc) via Owen Kelly


Mike Wise, Faking Tweets and Why It’s Not Okay

Cross posted at Sports Grid

Want to make a bunch of sports fans, journalist watch dogs and social media people flip out at the same time? I present to you your new role model: Mike Wise.

Before I launch into a discussion of his antics yesterday, I should say that I actually do appreciate Wise’s writing in my local Washington Post. I read his stuff frequently, and have definitely complimented it within SportsGrid and Mediaite. But I think Wise made a crucial judgment error yesterday when he tried to make Twitter a playground for a inferiority complex display over the way that channel is used surrounding news and rumors.

To catch everyone up, yesterday morning during his radio show on Washington’s FM sports net, The Fan, Wise thought it would be fun to toy with his Twitter followers by posting a few fake rumors. The fake stories were none too salacious (rumors about whether Donovan McNabb would start the Washington Redskins first game, for example), but the one that did take hold and passed around plenty was a claim that Ben Roethlisberger’s suspension would be five games after his meeting with the commissioner later this week.

His motive was to test a theory about what is considered credible and believable on the social status network, that those who have a certain air of authority often are believed fully without further vetting. As he told Dan Levy of Press Coverage yesterday afternoon:

“Bottom line: I picked a lousy way to show we have no credibility in this medium, in the social networking medium, and that nobody checks these things out. It was just not a good way to do it. If i had to do it all over again I would have picked another way.”

That’s the story. And it’s been discussed just about everywhere in the last 24 hours (fellow Post sports writer Dan Steinberg collected most of the responses yesterday evening). Fundamentally, most were upset with Wise for irresponsibly pulling the wool over the eyes of Twitter users, and potentially even using the fake news to drive a growth in new followers. Deadspin got a hold of the “I’m not upset, but I’m disappointed” memo that was passed around the sports staff shortly after the stunt, while others called for Wise’s suspension from the Washington Post.

All of this is well and good, and it looks good for the media organization to try and uphold its pre-set social media guidelines, which are valid. The fundamental benchmark for these guidelines, though, has nothing to do with the channel through which a journalist passes his message. There aren’t different rules for Twitter and Facebook and Foursquare. Regardless of the actual network being used, the Post’s guidelines are about journalism first:

We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism.

There is more than one difference between guys like Mike Wise and writers like those I get to join at a blog like SportsGrid. For example, Dan, Glenn and I have all Twitter accounts, but we established these ourselves and no one will really run to the bank on our predictions, no matter what interviews or stories we get here. But for Wise, he gets immediate credibility by way of that Washington Post label – he’s a good journalist, he earned it. And he uses Twitter as a broadcast – look back at his history and you’ll notice little engagement with followers but lots of story streams, often very informed as well.

Wise’s theory was that people on Twitter will trust anything from a credible source, run it without verifying, and he wanted to be able to say how dangerous that could be. What he failed to factor into his experiment was how credibility was earned, which is exactly what he could have jeopardized with his little stunt. Deep down, I’ve convinced myself that Wise wanted to make the famed “blogger in pajamas” point. Instead, he made the “journalists don’t get social media point,” and the evidence of this to me is his “I’m sorry you feel that way,” apology:

He’s only half right on his first point: Mike, nobody checks *your* facts, because you are a sports writer for one of the three most important newspapers in the country. You better believe they will now.

I want to look back at the idea that Wise should be suspended, because I don’t think he should. I feel like he’s a kid who was told not to go climb in a tree, went and did it anyway, and now has a broken arm to show for it. The broken arm is a lesson enough, don’t ground the guy.

Actually, I have a better idea: Instead of squelching Twitter involvement, the Post should force him to take a lesson from guys like Steinberg and engage his followers and those tweeting at him. Maybe if he learned a little more about what conversation is valued, he wouldn’t have had this ridiculous idea in the first place.


Quote of the Day: As Media Rolls Along

From Dan Shanoff’s excellent piece on the state of sports media, and how things have never been better:

There will always be a “bottom 50 percent” that is lousy — whether you are talking about newspaper sportswriting or blogs or college professors or restaurants or whatever.

But at the top? Things are really really good. Better than they ever have been.


An Amazing Shared Moment – Landon Donovan’s Goal

Love this vid of the reactions around the world. This is why I love the Internet:


Epic is the word you’re looking for [Weekend Treat]

As always, I put a fun story about it on Mediaite (someday soon, this will all be on Sports Grid!). Here though? We just enjoy the video in all its glory:


18,000 People Singing “New York Knicks” to Lebron [Weekend Treat]

There’s a backstory here, it involves Twitter and an incredibly well read sports columnist. That part’s at Mediaite. This part is just the crowd at the Gahhhhhhhden serenading what may be the last game for LBJ in a Cavalier uniform.


Twitter’s Newest Arena: Fan Control? [Now on Mediaite]

Buried in Bill Simmons’s NBA Round 2 wrap-up that was posted yesterday afternoon, he unveiled his newest idea: a Twitter account dedicated to starting chants during home games for his team, the Boston Celtics. Not sure what traditional media would ever have this ability, but really interested to see what Simmons does with this as the Cs have a chance to clinch a spot in the Eastern Conference finals come Thursday’s Game 6 against Cleveland. More about this innovative idea and the closest thing from history up at Mediaite.


“Los Suns,” Arizona, Sports, Politics and Media

Almost exactly four years ago, there was a fantastic Sports Illustrated feature by Gary Smith on Sam Kellerman, the murdered brother of former ESPN personality and long-time boxing writer, Max. Kind of an obscure piece to remember on the spot, but there’s a pretty over-arching theme about sports and life that I will never forget from the story Max recalls about his brother:

Once, debating why man had invented sports, Sam unloaded this haymaker: “Sports is man’s joke on God, Max. You see, God says to man, ‘I’ve created a universe where it seems like everything matters, where you’ll have to grapple with life and death and in the end you’ll die anyway, and it won’t really matter.’ So man says to God, ‘Oh, yeah? Within your universe we’re going to create a sub-universe called sports, one that absolutely doesn’t matter, and we’ll follow everything that happens in it as if it were life and death.’”

In determining why I’ve become so invested in sports teams – and why writing about sports media is my favorite hobby – I often think back to this quote. It’s certainly a universal idea, but there are moments when it doesn’t seem that way, and what’s happening in Arizona right now shows that there are times when sports trickles a little bit too close to the real world.

The state’s sports franchises have been dragged into the debate around the controversial new immigration law, and talks of moving major league events including the 2011 MLB All-Star Game (but, interestingly, not the BCS Championship Game, as noted by Dr. Saturday) led Governor Jan Brewer to write a column posted to one of the most trafficked news sites online: a little sports empire known as ESPN.com. Sure, it may not make sense that Brewer is taking politics to this audience, but the lines have already been greatly blurred to the point that this was absolutely necessary. As she writes:

By now, sports fans everywhere have heard something about the passage of Senate Bill 1070, a measure I signed into law. It has resulted in protests outside ballparks hosting our Arizona Diamondbacks and has led to calls on Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to strip the City of Phoenix’s opportunity to host baseball’s Midsummer Classic in July 2011.

Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year’s All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests.

Her logic is economic, not philosophical, in nature, but there is a connection here. The fact is that you can’t separate the interests of the people of a state with the professional athletes who wear uniforms emblazoned with the hometown. It’s nice to try, and as unfair as it may be to those unwilling to participate, it’s a little too late. If you look closely in the photo that accompanies this post, there’s one sign that says, “Shut up and play basketball.” Of course, it was taken likely during the middle of the game, so they were taking basketball, but the wishful thinking of this Phoenician is really no much more than that.

Mike Wise, a sports columnist at the Washington Postpublished a brilliant piece this morning talking about the political tenor echoing through the US Airways Center, Chase Field and many other parts of the sports landscape. He properly gives the Phoenix Suns owner, Robert Sarver, the credit he deserves for not shying away from the issue of the day and championing his stance, with the support of his players, through jerseys that said “Los Suns” instead of the team’s normal wordmark. His defense of Sarver is well put, and he’s right to say why this is a valid arena for debate:

One of the reasons we want sports to be a separate arena is because we like the safe feeling that the winner’s circle is colorless, genderless, accepting of any ethnicity or socioeconomic group. It’s a relief from real-world complexity. Everything from the score to the time has finality to it, genuine resolution. It’s not intractable; it’s resolvable.

But when political issues so pervade a community, a sports franchise — from the owner to the players — can’t pretend they are somehow above or below the fray.

Sam Kellerman’s idealist view of sports is an important one to keep – it helps to remind sports fans on the morning after a bad loss that this is just a game. But in the scheme of things, it’s also one of the most prominent platforms of the community, and ignoring that role is a terrible game plan.


How The Red Sox Taught Me About Patient Communities

Fenway Park

There’s a very specific bond that happens among native New Englanders around our baseball team. We love our team, and from April to October, no matter where we’ve been displaced, we sometimes act like we live and die by the Boston Red Sox. Well, things haven’t exactly started off great this spring for my team; however, I still spend about three hours nearly every evening tracking games on my mobile phone, tweeting about the most recent developments, and looking to gather resources from blogs and influential fan voices.

It isn’t rare for people to treat their sports teams as if they were family, and when you are that invested into something, you sometimes look for communities to join to help cope with the emotional toll. This is by no means an anomaly to fandom, and the ironic realization for me came because the early season has left my team on figurative life support. There are a lot of comparisons to the way supporters of sports teams interact in communities online with how those facing a health condition act.

My experience in health and patient communities is from the outside looking in, as a researcher, but from what I’ve seen, the metaphor works well to discuss some of the mechanisms of online patient groups. Here are five ways to look at the way those communities work – thanks to Red Sox Nation.

Community on the Good Days

Any time the Red Sox do something right, my Twitter and Facebook feeds often ignite with the news; I basically have an immediate group to celebrate the little victories throughout the marathon-like baseball season. There are definite parallels in health support communities online. For a great example, check out the nature of messages on a forum among those trying to quit smoking, and you’d see that the stories of success are just as frequent – if not more so – than posts about needing advice.

…And the Bad Days

Tough losses happen during a long season, and any team can go into a slump that often brings the spirits of its fan base with it, but online gives us a way to rally together and remind each other that it’s going to be alright in the next game. Patients in an online support community often seek similar traits of support, albeit around significantly more serious matters. Still, the gentle reminder to “not abandon blowouts” is applicable to both situations. A quick glance on some of the posts in a support group like Inspire will show that the need for a helpful ear and someone to say, “It’ll get better,” isn’t hard to find.

Establishing Personal Connections

There are definitely different sizes of patient communities online – some are really specific, and by the nature, much smaller. Even in some of the bigger groups, though, participants still get to know each other and build bonds of trust and credibility. Baseball works the same way: the Red Sox may have a larger national footprint than other clubs, but there is still a tight group that forms. There are some people who I’ve first been in touch with via Twitter or a community, and later gotten to know beyond what they discuss about baseball. A great example is the community around diabetes: even through a broad, diverse group of bloggers and support forums who retain their personal voices while discussing the condition.

Anytime, Anywhere Support Groups

With a mobile connection or wireless access, I can find my fellow members of Red Sox Nation just about wherever I may be. Since the community exists online, I can log in anywhere to rejoice or seek support with my fellow fans. Patient communities enjoy the same universality: the opportunity to find someone with the right experience and history around even the rarest conditions is possible, and it can be done at any time of the day on Twitter, a group on Patients Like Me or on blogs.

A Way to Get Involved

It doesn’t matter if it’s sports fandom or a health condition, the emotional investment in something is often what keeps people coming back to the community as it becomes a part of their life. One of the aspects of participatory medicine (the idea supporting the engaged patient movement) is that the online connection makes it possible for the individual to be more involved in their own healthcare, empowering them to feel more a part of their own health improvement. This is where the metaphor stops: talking about my team isn’t going to make the Sox win any more games (although it’s definitely cathartic), but for patients, getting involved can have definite impacts on their outlook for the future, health and happiness.

Originally posted at Edelman Digital. Image credit: werkunz1

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.