“Radio in general is not doing well, but talk radio is doing well”…a simple statement but in the Boston market, an explanation why two full time all sports talk radio stations are thriving and a third operates on ESPN Boston Radio.com…Fans feel more connected sharing their opinions…Whether it’s agreeing or disagreeing with the host(s) or just reliving the events of the game, sports fans need to “feed the beast” till the next game rolls around…
If you’re a sports talk host, however, you’d better know your stuff…there’s no place to hide…”You can tell if they don’t know what they’re talking about,” says Adam Jones of ESPN Boston Radio.com. That’s why you get a passionate audience.”… Co-host Drew Brooks added, “Four hours is a long time, there’s no place to hide”…The sports talk landscape in Boston has been littered with talk show hosts who love to hear themselves talk but just haven’t connected with the listeners…”not a fan”, “too mean” and sorry ladies “what does she know about sports”…take your pick, it’s totally subjective…But that’s exactly what a sports opinion oughta be…
Interestingly enough, sports talk radio has benefited from the Twitter phenomenon when it comes to informing its listeners…But that too comes with a caveat…”Twitter is a nice way of managing a breaking news story”, said Jones at a recent Sports Journalism Seminar at Boston University… “it’s one streamlined place where there’s a lot of information. You have to be careful, you don’t want to see some thing real quick and run with it.”…Just because it gets tweated doesn’t make it so (remember when ESPN tweated the NFL lockout was back on?) …Bill Simmons admits he made a mistake when he mentioned Randy Moss and the Vikings in a tweat last year only to get lucky sixteen hours later when the trade was announced….The fact remains, reporters still need to check their sources…
You can listen live on the traditional dial, you can stream it on your computer, you can even download the podcast for later in the day but there no mistaking Sports Talk Radio is growing in popularity…Did we mention it’s about to expand it’s coverage through a partnership with a regional cable outfit?….we’ll deal with that next time…
19 Comments
Lee Feiner and Tyler Murray posted on September 26, 2011 at 1:44 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMRe3IVlbxM&feature=channel_video_title
Craig Meyer posted on September 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Despite the fact that many people in our class noted that they only listen to sports radio in the car (which is not all that often), the medium continues to exist and thrive, bringing in so many callers that people often have to wait an hour or more to talk to the hosts. Many people may not like sports radio and some consider it empty noise, but the simple fact is that even in a changing media landscape, it is still popular and thus merits the attention of our class.
Many stations like WEEI, the Sports Hub and the ESPN Boston radio component make sure that their coverage is almost entirely local. It is a plan that works just as well for newspapers like the Globe and television stations like NESN because it allows hosts and fans to delve deeper into a given amount of teams rather than trying to sound off on national sports issues in which they have limited access, proximity or particular expertise.
Sports radio remains so popular because of this sense of locality and community, but it is also helped by the fact that it serves as a forum for fans to meet and discuss sports in an open arena. It can be a passionate fan tuning in or calling to vent about the Red Sox blowing a ninth inning lead, or it can also be for a fan needing somewhere to turn after his/her team won a championship or clinched a playoff spot in dramatic fashion. Sports radio is one of the few mediums — along with social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter — where fans can to come together instantaneously, react and have an open dialogue.
Sports radio is also important to study because of some advantages and disadvantages that it has over more traditional media outlets like newspapers. There is a notion that many sports radio personalities are simply ‘studio gangsters,’ i.e. guys who routinely criticize and belittle others only because they are confined in a studio, far away from those who they are taking shots at. Many people who worked at a newspaper I interned at this summer held similar feelings, stating they felt all sports radio hosts had to do was make a brash opinion (like “I think the Celtics should fire Doc Rivers”) and simply let the calls flood in so they wouldn’t have to do the work. However, by making such claims (just for the sake of having a strong opinion to drive in calls) a sports radio host loses a sense of legitimacy with the listeners, something that hurts him/her in the long run. And while some sports radio hosts do fit the ‘studio gangster’ billing, Jones noted that, for hosts like himself who go to games, those in sports radio have advantages over beat writers who cover the team daily because there is a sense of detachment. A sports radio host doesn’t usually form the same relationships with players and coaches that a beat writer does and sports radio hosts don’t often have to worry about alienating a source if they are extremely critical of them. Thus, a sports radio host is able to provide honest, unfiltered opinion that is free of influence since these hosts aren’t usually ‘too close to the team.’
Between a sense of detachment and an existence as an open forum of discussion on local sports, sports talk radio continues to remain a popular medium in a ever-evolving sports media landscape, meaning it’s something that can’t be ignored, especially in a class like this.
josh posted on September 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm
The topic of sports talk radio is important because it is a side of sports reporting we had not touched upon yet. Up to this point our two seminars had only discussed the print side of the business. This seminar opened up a whole new can of worms.
One reason for this is because sports talk radio is mainly successful on a localized level. Craig hits the nail on the head when he says that the reason it is so successful is because of the sense of locality and community. To borrow from Craig again, national shows would not work as well because the content would not be as deep due to the lack of proximity and knowledge of each and every team. As our presenters said, the benefit of radio is that you get an immediate, real reaction.
However, I think Craig misses a major point about why internet talk radio is so much more valuable. Local radio topics that are broadcast over the internet allow displaced fans the ability to connect with their teams. If one were in a car, this would not be possible because local broadcasts can’t make it across the country. Nowadays, everyone pretty much has a computer or similar device (i.e. smart phone) at arm’s length and can connect. People from all over the country can tune in and chime in to a broadcast of their local teams via the internet. If your team is not playing a nationally televised game, talk radio may be one of your best options for hearing about significant plays, injuries, etc.
Internet radio provides other advantages as well. As Adam Jones mentions, he can talk about a particular subject and at the same time direct listeners to articles or other media that he is referring to. Listeners, since they are on a computer, can then find said article and be better informed in the discussion. It allows for a much more interactive experience, unlike waiting on the phone for an hour to talk about a subject which has probably already passed.
The last thing I will add is a little tidbit I’ve picked up through all three seminars, the importance of creativity. I could understand it when the beat reporters mentioned it, but to hear a radio host talk about slow days versus great days, it really hit me that one must have at least a little bit of creativity in any field if they are going to be successful. I thought for sure there would always be something to talk about, especially in a city like Boston, but apparently I was mistaken.
Rick Sobey posted on September 27, 2011 at 12:36 am
One of the important topics from the sports talk radio seminar was when Adam Jones discussed the annual Brady versus Manning debate. Jones said that this debate will never come to an end, and he hates talking about it over and over again. Every year, I listen to this debate, and I can’t wait until the week is over when the media finally moves on to another subject. Jones said that he looks for a fresh angle instead, and I think that is great advice for whatever news medium I end up in. People will head to another radio station, TV station, or newspaper if they keep on hearing or seeing the same headline. It is always extremely important to go your own way and separate from the pack of journalists, a vital point that Josh already touched on. People always want to learn something new, and an article about how Brady is better than Manning is not the first of its kind. It is essential for me to work on creativity and start finding newer, enticing perspectives.
Also at the sports talk radio seminar, there was the important discussion of breaking news and how the sports commentators handle it. Jones and Drew Brooks were saying that breaking news on the radio is the best for immediate reactions. They don’t have much time to think about what happened, so they have to give quick, honest reactions. I believe that these immediate reactions are one of the hardest things to do in any field of journalism, and it’s an area of work for me in my journalism career. I can only imagine how nerve wracking it must be for writers to put themselves out there and give their own opinions when a big story hits. I usually like to first digest the information, whether it be a trade, free agent signing, or a player being cut, and then hear what people are saying about the news. However, being the first one to respond to a breaking story is difficult and very risky if you don’t have all the information. I must get better at reacting quicker, gathering information quicker, and not being influenced by other opinions. The journalism landscape can no longer wait for digested responses.
Then there is the George Cain blackboard article, which compares hosts on the Sports Hub with WEEI. Cain talks about how Glenn Ordway of WEEI constantly praises the Patriots, and “any caller that had the temerity to levy a criticism at the Patriots were talked over, shouted down or hung up on.” On the other hand, Jones of ESPN radio said that even though his studio is at the Patriots facility, he is not afraid to criticize the team, as long as he backs up the criticism with stats. This is yet another great suggestion to take away from the seminar. It’s very important to be as fair as possible, not acting like Ordway. Jones said he tells it like it is, providing numbers for support and backing up his argument. If more analysts and commentators acted like that, then there would be better discussion over the airwaves. It’s all about being accurate and less about off-the-mark partisanship.
Caroline posted on September 27, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Some people might think that sports talk radio is just noise in the background on their car ride in or out of work, that no one pays any attention to it, or the people who do call in have nothing else to do but sit by the phone for hours at a time just to hear themselves talk on the radio. Yet sports talk radio is doing very well despite the idea that radio itself is not.
Sports talk radio is successful and important to discuss because it is all about keeping it local. It is hard to have sports talk radio on a national level that is why WEEI, The Sports Hub, and ESPNBoston.com are doing so well in the Boston.
It would be impossible to have good sports talk radio shows about all the teams across the country. The most important aspect of sports talk radio is keeping the topics local. The listeners want to get to know the hosts and hear their opinion on the topics at hand. Sports talk radio is thriving because they have created their own little niche and localized their topics. This creates a loyal following because they listeners feel like they know and appreciate the host.
The fact that we learned that the majority of the listeners of ESPNBoston.com are not from Boston but from places like London, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Canada is a testament to the idea of: if you keep it local they will listen. Just because a listener does not live in or around Boston they still might be Bean Town fans and want to get the scoop on what’s going on in the “city of champions.”
What I thought was interesting from the seminar was that there is no difference between radio and internet sports talk. Yet, an advantage about the internet is that Drew Brookes and Adam Jones from ESPNBoston.com can direct listeners to links on the webpage to give them more information if they want it.
I also enjoyed the discussion about how media outlets might think of hosts of sports talk radio as ‘studio gangsters’ basically saying that they criticize players and never see them face to face like a beat reporter would. In Craig’s entry he gives and example by saying sports talk radio hosts will make brash opinions like saying the Celtics should fire Soc Rivers, and just let the call flow in. I agree with Craig when he says “while some sports radio hosts do fit the ’studio gangster’ billing, Jones noted that, for hosts like himself who go to games, those in sports radio have advantages over beat writers who cover the team daily because there is a sense of detachment.”
Yes, a sports radio host does not have the same relationship with players and coaches as a beat reporter might have and I am pretty sure they do not want that kind of close relationship anyways. When a host does go or watch a game he has the right to give his honest opinion on what he thinks, whether he is close with the players or not. The audience just has to trust the host in giving their best-informed opinion.
Margot posted on September 27, 2011 at 8:51 pm
I think this might have been the most eye opening seminar for me so far this semester. Until last week, I never considered radio as an option for myself. Perhaps because my mother is in radio and so rarely do our parents careers seem appealing. After listening to Adam Jones and Andrew Brooks, I found myself much more curious about the possibilities.
Like the rest of the journalism industry, radio is in a state of transition, of evolution. Our parents grew up listening to the radio in the car, at home, on the job. For many people in our generation, radio is white noise, something you listen to when your in the car when you want to zone out. Sports radio, however, is thriving and finding new ways to reach new listeners, such as streaming online. This allows radio stations to reach listeners all over the world, instead of just the local market. As Adam said, the interaction level with radio is rather high, and streaming only increases that potential.
I think that hosting a sports radio show sounds like an exciting challenge. As our guests said last week, there is very little room for error and listeners can tell when the hosts don’t really know what they are talking about. You need to be on point all the time, and that takes dedication. If, as a host, you didn’t have time to watch a game and you have to talk about it the next day, it comes through. It’s also one of the only forms of media where you don’t have to conceal your opinions. It’s nearly impossible to not have opinions about sports, and not having to keep them to yourself all the time can be nice.
Catie posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Although I agree that sports talk radio remains successful because it’s localized, I feel the main reason it thrives today is due to the public’s need for attention and belonging. Every passionate sports fan is eager for their chance to voice their own opinion to an audience, rather than listen to narcissistic broadcasters, such as Skip Bayless, ramble about his own views. Sports talk show listeners are passionate fans that are willing to waste their time waiting for hours for a quick 30-second spot in the limelight. It’s these crazy, attention-seeking fans that keep sports talk radio alive.
What I found most interesting about our sports talk radio seminar was the brief discussion about expanding sports talk radio through a partnership with cable. I believe that with the addition of cameras, sports talk radio would change entirely. One of the reasons sports talk radio hosts are able to fulfill their ‘studio gangster’ status is because they don’t have eye-to-eye contact with their listeners. It is much easier for a person to be brutally honest when they do not have to make eye contact with the person on the other line, similar to a text message, email or phone conversation. The absence of a camera allows for hosts to hide facial expressions while they adjust their tone to reveal a response that could be dishonest. Once the camera is connected and the host must make eye contact with his or her listeners, it is my bet that they will be much less inclined to give their honest response. This change could lead to the demise of sports talk radio.
Catie posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Also, I agree with Lee that it is difficult to trust sports talk radio hosts. Why should we trust their opinion? As Adam and Drew said, they are not at every single practice, or every single game.
While interning with the Denver Broncos, I became frustrated with the media for gathering opinions on whether Tim Tebow or Kyle Orton should start because half of them hadn’t even been to one practice to see each of them play. ESPN reporters who hadn’t attended a single day of training camp were arguing that coach John Fox wasn’t giving Tim Tebow a chance and that he should be Denver’s starting quarterback. Yet, had these reporters been at training camp every single day, just as I was, I am certain they would understand why Kyle Orton is the starting quartback and their opinions would change.
For this reason, I respect beat reporters more than sports talk radio hosts because they are there day in and day out, earning them the right to form their own opinions on players, coaches and teams.
Joe Parello posted on September 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I believe that there is only one reason we had this week’s seminar on sports talk radio, and that is its popularity. Other than that, I’m sorry, but I have to say I don’t believe it has much merit.
Now listen, I LOVE sports talk radio, and I thought maybe there was something else to it that I was missing. But after hearing our guests, who were great with their casual and honest responses, I just don’t think of it in the same light as other forms of sports journalism.
Then I thought, perhaps that is not really the appropriate measuring stick. I came into the class thinking that sports talk radio was an amazing forum, an internet message board on steroids, if you will. I left feeling the same thing. Don’t get me wrong, I think our guests put a good deal of work into what they do, but I don’t believe it is journalism, I think it is forum hosting.
I am going to have to disagree with my man Tyler on that point. He said he thought sports talk radio sounded like the sweetest job ever and changed his mind. I had the exact opposite reaction. They can’t say suck on the radio? Big deal. The two of them clearly had great chemistry and enjoyed working together, and they get the opportunity to attend practices without the pressure of producing any work or meeting any deadlines. All they do is use that time to get some background with the teams they talk about.
Call me crazy, but sign me up for that job right now. I’ll bring in Heidi and we can run our WTBU Monday Night Sports Block show until the end of time.
Lacey posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:28 am
This summer, I worked at a sports radio station. Among the many things I learned is that, first, this talk show format can survive and grow if there is a passionate fan base supporting local franchises. Second, people love to hear themselves talk. Third, opinions are easy to throw around and cost efficient. Fourth, talk show hosts are really, really well prepared and can talk continuously for hours; a feat that is not to be discounted; it’s hard. And finally, listeners love to disagree, confront and challenge the talk show hosts over the radio. What is the worst that can happen? The caller gets hung up on. There is no serious backlash.
When Adam and Drew came to speak the other evening, I found that they hit on some key ideas that make talk radio successful. There is a constant need for self-expression and what better way to talk about interests and disinterests than to someone over the phone who knows what they’re talking about; and all radio hosts know should what they’re talking about. It’s their job and what they are paid to do. I always find it surprising when a caller buzzes in and is shocked by how much information the host throws at them. They’ve done their homework caller, they need to know what is going on and what is important to the people.
Which brings me to the statement that each hit on: If you do not know what you’re talking about on-air, people will be able to sniff out a phony and rip into him or her. A lot of the time the listeners calling in know quite a bit about whats going on and can really make a radio talk show host work with obscure questions that the caller feels should and must be answered. The idea that “there is no place to hide,” on the radio is true. Everything is live, quick and nearly without a filter once the call that is screened gets past the producer. Essentially, know the ins and outs of the sports franchises in the area and always be prepared for the unexpected.
Drew hinted briefly on the Twitter craze and how it has affected the radio market. He brushed over the fact that you can now interact with fans to a longer extent over Twitter exchanges. Radio hosts can get information quickly and since a lot of talk show radio is opinion based, Twitter is a God-send. With all the speculations and biased messages that flow freely on this social media site, it’s no wonder why radio hosts love using that material. It’s free and information comes directly from the horses mouth. The middle man has long since gone away, making the statements from Twitter controversial and unscreened. Perfect material to discuss over the air and to get callers to respond.
As Adam and Drew are broadcasting online, they informed the class that there show has a more national feel than other radio stations in Boston since they are heard by a more diverse group of people across the country. Their focus is still primarily on Boston sports, but they have a unique opportunity of being able to go against the grain a bit and discuss national stories of interest, ones which other Boston sports talk radio would not mention. For better or worse, they have more to cover and talk about, but also need to know what is going on across the country as well as in Boston.
Heidi posted on September 28, 2011 at 1:49 pm
So I do agree that sports talk radio does not have the same stigma as other areas of journalism. I mean, clearly, radio hosts are not doing the same kind of work that beat reporters do. But for those of us opinionated sports junkies, is there a better job in the world? I think not. I think Joe made some good points. And yes, I would love to do Monday Night Sports Block until the end of time. Maybe some random radio station will let the two of us just talk for hours about sports. So basically what we do every day but they would actually pay us!
Sports talk radio is so different than the other jobs in sports. What was the term that Gasper and Rapaport brought up? Studio Gangsters, I think? It’s funny because it’s true in so many cases. It’s easy to hide behind a microphone and toss out unfounded opinions on whatever you want. I think Adam made some good points on that. Do your research. Show up the next day and back up what you have to say. One of the nice things about radio is that you have a computer and a bunch of people around than can constantly look up stats and other facts. And the relaxed atmosphere at most stations allows you to go back to a topic and back it up with info or correct yourself. It’s nice not to worry about having to write a piece and get it in by a deadline or stress about coming up with 1000 words when nothing is going on. Sure it can be difficult to find something new to talk about but it is much easier to take a few callers and BS your way through a couple topics on the radio than it is on paper.
When it comes down to it, it’s all about preference. Just like I think it takes a special person to be a beat reporter, it also takes a special person to do radio. I’m not talking about difficulty. To be successful in radio, you need to have a a certain personality. You have to be opinionated. You have to be able to argue with people. Not everyone likes doing that. It’s not for everyone and people may not think as highly of radio hosts as they do of writers but, hey, it’s a lot of fun.
David posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Sports radio isn’t traditional sports journalism and I don’t understand why it has to be. You have opinion/editorial pages in newspapers and if you scour ESPN, the majority of the programs available besides the actual games being played and SportsCenter are radio broadcasts and shows that encourage “competitive banter”, opinion and audience participation just as sports radio does.
Sports radio IS a forum, a place where anyone who has a phone, can text or can tweet can also voice his or her opinion. It is also one of the biggest sources of Sports news available.
Don Imus was fired by CBS for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy- headed hos.” In 2010, Tony Kornheiser was suspended by ESPN for comments he made about Hannah Storm’s wardrobe. Not to mention the numerous example of players and coaches who go on the air and say things that they regret and are chastised for.
If sports radio broadcasts aren’t sports journalism why then why would television broadcasts be sports journalism? You have Lou Holtz on the College Gameday broadcast spouting everything positive about Notre Dame and you have several former pro players who express blatant biases towards their former teams on the air, including Tedy Bruschi who comes in next week. Why would this be considered sports journalism any more than radio would be? Lots of research and time go into the preparation of both mediums and both are outlets for opinion and news.
While sports radio may not be traditional sports journalism in itself, it is a source of controversy and opinion, both of which are integral to sports journalism.
Craig Meyer posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Rick brings up some very interesting points about the relationship between breaking news and fans being able to digest it. Personally, if my team loses a big game, I’ll be extremely aggravated and furious in the immediate aftermath, but after giving myself time (and usually a night of sleep), I can look back on what happened and draw reasonable conclusions. I, too, like to take time to process information because I think it makes for better and more intelligent thoughts on a given matter. However, many sports radio hosts don’t have that same luxury. If news breaks while they are on the air, they not only have to deliver that news, but they also have to determine what it means and give an opinion on a piece of information that’s not even an hour old. Twitter works the same way, with people reacting within minutes of breaking news.
Jones noted that being “50/50” on a topic isn’t always a bad thing, but it usually doesn’t make for good radio. These sports radio hosts thus have to draw a quick opinion in some cases, an opinion which will forever be tied to them. Obviously discretion can be important in these matters, but for the sake of good radio, there often has to be the right balance of well-developed thought and strong opinion.
Lee Feiner and Tyler Murray posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Joe — I’m glad you love sports talk radio. It’s a big reason why you’re one of the best hosts we have at WTBU Sports. But surely you can’t think a professional gig is as simple as putting your weekly show (which I thoroughly enjoy) on national air.
It’s one thing to talk sports with your friends in studio and have family members listen and call in, but it’s obviously much more difficult to get random people to tune in and give a rat’s keister about what you have to say. What if Heidi wants to talk about the Redskins, but you want to talk about F1 racing? Does America want to hear about either of those things? What if your boss forces you to talk about something you have no interest in? And most importantly, how do you set yourself apart as an “expert” as opposed to a well-read fan? I remember a caller on 98.5 asked a new host “so what are your credentials?” He didn’t have a good answer. It was awkward.
Sports Talk sounds like a good time, but I think dealing with those questions day after day could wear you down.
Sports Talk Radio seems much more suited for the holistic sports fan, and we’ve got plenty of those. I like the idea of covering one team during the season, and one team only. That way you can really get to know the ins and outs of a team without having to worry about what’s going on with the other clubs around town or around the country.
The real talents can keep tabs on everybody, but they run the risk of earning that “studio gangster” label, because it’s impossible to be in every locker room at once.
Keep up the good work on MNSB!
Tyler Murray posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm
^The previous post was just from Tyler Murray. The views expressed in the message do not necessarily reflect those of Lee Feiner.
Patrick Hazel posted on September 28, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I honestly do not know much of talk radio/ sports radio. Most of my knowledge is that this is where people get to show their opinions by calling in and being interactive with sports news in their town or national sports news. I haven’t ever listened to the sports radio in Boston, but we all know how passionate Boston fans of all sports are. I bet the conversations get really intense!
I like Joe Parcello’s comment, that sports talk radio is “internet blogging on steroids.” As I said before, fans get the chance to listen and be interactive with the hosts if they are received as a caller in to the show. I also have to disagree with one of Joe’s points, that sports radio is not true journalism. Sports radio hosts do have to add their own opinions and facts just like any other journalist has to. Their has to be their own “flavor” which is emphasized even more when a fan calls in and, say, disagrees with the hosts statements. How does a radio host react? He should of course, use his facts to back up his opinions and statements, but I feel that it is mostly opinionated the response that they would give.
Now, I can see where he would get the opinion that radio is not true journalism. But I just feel that they put in as much work and study time as any other journalism professional. As I said in class, I am not a fan of sports radio. The only times I have ever really listened to sports radio is with my dad in his car when I was younger.
Heidi also has a good point, about “studio gangsters.” I do believe it is a lot easier to hide behind a michrophone with no face shown and speak your mind however you want, while actual beat reporters find and search for information, and on top of that, have to actually face these athletes who they often praise and beat up in their stories as well. Although the radio job is truly different than any other journalism job, I believe that radio has been doing well. They seem to have good listener numbers, and they are all doing as much home work as a beat reporter (or at least they should be) in order to be a successful radio broadcaster.
Mallory posted on September 28, 2011 at 9:19 pm
This seminar started off with the question, why do we have sports talk radio? I was like isn’t that obvious? But honestly I had to think about it. Why are there such loyal listeners who stay on hold for over an hour while I don’t even listen to sports talk radio for more than 2 hours per week? Thinking about it more, I think the popularity of sports talk radio is exclusive to the Boston market and the competitive nature of Boston sports teams and fans. I can’t tell you if there’s a sports radio station in Virginia but I can tell you the name of some of the hosts in Boston and talk about the major rivalry between WEEI and the Sports Hub. As Adam Jones said, “people are insane, there’s so much emotion with sports, people can call in and vent and yell at anyone.”
While I’m not exactly interested in pursuing a career in sports radio, it’s still important to be knowledgeable about the industry as a journalist. A trend specific to sports radio shows is that these kinds of radio stations are thriving compared to regular radio programming. Margot does a good job of pointing this out by saying radio, and other mediums, are undergoing a technological change. Sports talk radio is doing a good job of adapting by attracting new listeners through new mediums like online streaming.
Finally, I agree a little with Patrick and Joe’s comments on whether or not sports radio is considered journalism. These hosts definitely know their stuff and do their research. As noted in the seminar “there’s no place to hide” when you’re talking for 4 hours. However, I do also see conflict in labeling sports hosts as journalists…they’re not unbiased! In fact the most annoying thing to me are sports hosts taking the opposite side of an issue just to be the contrarian. It’s obvious they only take that side because no one else has that viewpoint. One of the course documents points this out describing how radio has turned into a daily soap opera where yelling over each other during the course of the show is something hosts try to do. So I think you can really go either way this argument but as long as hosts continue to gain listeners, I don’t think it matters what kind of label you give them.
nbove11 posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:53 am
A few years ago, I barely listened to any radio stations and I couldn’t understand the purpose for the antiquated system. I couldn’t stand all the commercials on the music stations and found all the talking heads on the talk stations to be annoying. Then two summers ago I was working for WEEI, and I had to listen to and write about the three main shows at the time: D&C, Dale and Holley, and The Big Show (Rick, The Big O doesn’t yell over just Patriot haters, he does it for everyone).
By the time that summer was over, I knew the nuances of the talk format, and I understood the purpose of talk. It gave the fans a chance to vent (which came in handy with the Celtics and Bruins collapses) and conform with the mainstream, because if a person was brave enough to form their own conclusion, they’d get ripped apart. Boston is just a vicious sports media town.
This summer, on the other hand, I worked along with Dave Finn as a Red Sox production intern at WEEI and I got to see more of the sports side and less of the talk side. From what I’ve seen, I think this is the more productive, interesting, and fulfilling side of the radio. Broadcasting the sport is more necessary than talking about it because you’re providing a service for fans in need.
Just last night I was working at what turned into the most depressed place in the world, the WEEI studios, and I ran back and forth between the different recording booths, cutting up highlights from the three other wild card games going on at the same time. It was rewarding to return back to the main studio and see text messages coming in from Sox fans in Alaska, Montana, and Texas telling us to keep up the good work. To them, we were the only way for them follow their team in real time (but with a seven second delay).
Talk radio serve as a way for people to feel better about themselves and their teams – either by venting for everyone to hear, or by having an “expert” put what the fans think into more eloquent terms. But beyond that, I think radio is more useful when it provides a service, like broadcasting a game when a fan can’t go in person or be near a TV. For that reason, I don’t think the radio will be going away any time soon.
David Lombardi posted on September 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Heidi and Joe both make great points. First, in response to Joe’s post: sports talk radio really does seem like the ultimate dream job for a sports fan. After hearing from beat reporters about their time-consuming and pressure-packed schedule the week before, the freedom of a talk show host sounded enviable. They get credentials whenever they want to attend a game. They can be on the scene without having to worry about meeting a deadline every day. All they have to concern themselves with is is talking sports, and if sports are your passion, that’s not a problem!
With that established, I agree with Joe: sports talk radio is NOT journalism, in my opinion. It’s forum moderating. It’s analysis. The host isn’t reporting and breaking news; he is simply talking about it.
Just because sports talk radio is not journalism does not mean that it is not difficult, though. This is where I get to Heidi’s point. Hosting a show is definitely not for everyone. It is for people who are loud, outspoken, and opinionated. Those are three qualities that aren’t necessarily conducive to good journalism, but they’re great in the talk radio world. It’s more a matter of personality, connecting with your listeners, and standing out as opposed to reporting and getting the facts straight.
So, yes, sports talk is a diehard fan’s dream job, but only if his personality suits it. That’s the biggest lesson I took from this seminar.