It comes in all shapes and sizes but sports information on the internet knows no boundaries…home grown websites, twitter, wildly commercial pop up laden pages likes ESPN.com and Sports.yahoo.com, even Facebook put sports news forward all day….But one thing they don’t do is differentiate between journalism and entertainment…that’s left up to you…
I’m not sure readers(viewers) care much about that difference but it’s worth examining,especially in an academic setting…ponder the article contributed by Caitlin Donohue this week…Journalism or Fanism….Interesting that the issue is even being considered, don’t you think?…
So, not only are readers thinking about the integrity of the author but, thankfully, the people who are opining are taking it into consideration….Five years ago, the question was “what’s this twitter thing”….and there were naysayers who said, “don’t worry, it’ll never last”….so much for that argument…It’s now, it’s live….and it’s sparked discourse…
Sports reporters walk a fine line every day, being asked to analyze events of the day for the countless opinion shows both locally and nationally…respected reporters like Michael Smith, Bob Ryan and Jackie MacMullan appear on Around the Horn as much to entertain as inform…How many viewers actually read Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornhesier before they became stars on PTI?…But writers, comedians, actors, students even have been able to translate their opinions and their material to the internet and gain wide audiences because they have know how to cross that line every now and then….
In the end it comes down to credibility, some might even add personality…But sports reporting can be both journalism and entertainment…let the buyer beware!
25 Comments
Taylor Williams posted on September 16, 2012 at 12:24 pm
With changes in journalism come changes in the roles writers and reporters play. As the business has moved from print to digital, expanding the already-substantial network of blogs and social media, one thing has become indisputably clear: people want their opinions to be heard, and they appreciate forums for discussion.
This notion may apply to sports more than any other journalistic field. The digital age allows sports information to be consumed faster and through more outlets than ever before. A popular blogger is judged as much by the quality of his insights as his ability to draw readership and has to have some flair to maintain those readers. Still, a dilemma persists. Should sports journalists always be looking to fuel the fires with their analysis, thereby straddling the line between journalism and entertainment, or should they prioritize their traditional role of reporting the facts, plain and simple?
Luckily, the issue isn’t totally black-and-white. The PTI guys are great at what they do—analyzing and debating stories from different angles. Kornheiser and Wilbon are both old-school newspaper guys who supplement their perspectives in facts and statistics. They’ve both written columns that are both opinionated and designed to entertain, but are nonetheless grounded in fact. But as the show has evolved, so have the duo’s on-camera personalities – a necessity in keeping viewers feeling refreshed and engaged. Where would BU’s own Bill Simmons be without the endless stream of pop culture references in his writing? As Professor Shorr noted, many of these guys are here to entertain as much as they are to inform.
Those examples illustrate how the line between journalism and entertainment is fading. But it still exists and needs to be acknowledged, industry changes notwithstanding. Which is why Jerry Thornton from barstoolsports.com was this week’s guest, as he represents the entertainment end of the spectrum in this debate. He doesn’t consider himself a member of Boston’s sports media, just a regular guy who weaves his love of sports, comedy, and writing into a job.
Thornton makes no bones about his complete lack of formal training in journalism. He’s not out there to report breaking news or conduct in-depth interviews, but to take the day’s headlines and repackage them in a way that makes frat guys laugh. There’s a place for that in the growing world of digital media, just like there’s a place on ESPN for legitimate sports journalists who have some personality. But at the end of the day, whoever is bringing the information to consumers needs to know which side of the fence he’s on.
Ashley Driscoll posted on September 16, 2012 at 12:27 pm
One of the most poignant moments of Jerry Thornton’s interview with us this week was when he admitted, rather he proudly proclaimed, that he doesn’t consider himself a journalist; he considers himself a writer. He made a point to note that journalists track down leads, participate in interviews, and go to the locker room. The fact that Thornton is not a journalist is a “badge of honor”, he said, and by not being a legitimate journalist, he isn’t constrained by anything. I was happy to hear this, because I was about to take him to task for presumably attempting to be a real journalist, and therefore taking away readership from those who do follow leads and participate in interviews.
The fact that there is a distinction between journalism and entertainment, and Thornton recognizes and appreciates the difference between the two, helps us to better understand the difference between them. He takes a story, or part of a story, and puts his own twist on it, adding an analogy or a sarcastic quip. The readership of barstoolsports.com knows and expects such material from him. The difference between what he posts and what we read in the Boston Globe or the Herald, or on ESPN.com, helps us to know that one is hard news journalism and the other is merely entertainment. We, however, are a select group. I agree that I’m not convinced that the mass of readers who are looking for sports news are able to so easily tell the difference between the two, or that they even care. This results in a competition for entertaining news, which makes it more difficult to sustain journalistic ethics, if there are to be any more in the present or near future.
The Guest Column “State of the Media 2011” from Boston Sports Media Watch explains that “expansion has watered down the product”, in reference to reporting and accountability in sports journalism. Why not capitalize on the fact that today’s sports journalism is “watered down”? In a way, people like Jerry hold journalists more accountable, which I can appreciate. Journalists are constrained in a way that bloggers and tweeters are not, and their job is not to be entertaining, unless they can do so and still be accountable and ethical.
Caitlin Donohue’s article, “Journalism or Fanism” brings out a point I noted last week, about what the journalist’s role really is… are they a fan or an unattached journalist just doing their job? Donohue writes, “So Journalists are simply fans with public keyboards and microphones”. I would argue that, thanks to the Internet, anyone, not just a journalist, can be a fan with a public keyboard and microphone. So everyone has to work a little harder to attract readership, but depending on what your role is, journalist or entertainer, you might go about it differently.
Kendall Salter posted on September 17, 2012 at 10:02 am
Sometimes it is OK to be entertaining. After all, sport is business and entertainment. There is a place for “hard” journalism in sports, but unlike other areas of the news — politics, business — there will always be a tinge of opinion and colored viewpoints in sports journalism. Even beat writers are largely expounding the viewpoint of their municipality. But sports are fun, and sometimes, it’s OK for writing about them to be fun, too. I might lean toward traditionalism, but part of the reason I was so surprised by the quality of the interview this week was because Mr. Thornton did not try to put himself forward as such a “hard” journalist. Rather, he nearly scoffed at it, preferring instead to recognize what he writes as entertainment. This did not make the seminar any less valuable to me.
I think that the reason Mr. Thornton was there, aside from the initial intent of counter-balancing Mr. Roche, was to show to the class the wide scope that online sports writing provides to all of us. There are so many opportunities to find a niche (a word Mr. Thornton used a few times) and expand on our interests, and it doesn’t have to be for NBC Sports or Sports Illustrated. We can start our own blog, use it for entertainment purposes, and draw a perfectly reasonable crowd of readers (however desirable morally or socially they might be) doing so. There is nothing wrong with that.
I disagree with Professor Shorr on one point from his blog. I do think that many readers care about the line between “journalism and fanism.” I know I do. If I wanted to read something whitewashed by the rooting interests of my own teams or school, I’d head to UCLABruins.com instead of the Los Angeles Times or the Sports Illustrated. Sometimes I do, and there is a role for that type of coverage on the web. As a developing sportswriter, it is a difficult transition to make, from fan to observer, subjective interests to objective professionalism. I wrote about how difficult a transition that is on my own site a few weeks ago, and find myself trying to hold back on Twitter for fear of occasional irrational responses.
What Mr. Thornton’s visit showed is that sometimes it’s OK to let that fan out, given the right set of circumstances and the right venue to air your viewpoint. Barstool is a great place for that, conducive to it, and designed for a readership base that will appreciate that kind of writing. But even professionally, on national media networks or sites like ESPN or SI, the line between fan and journalist, and when it is appropriate to cross it, becomes blurred.
This is a great line from the article that I think illustrates the dilemma perfectly:
“I believe that, as fans, we all have an inner journalist fighting to get out. We all over-analyse a simple game, turning it into a saga and looking for hidden agendas. So Journalists are simply fans with public keyboards and microphones.”
On Twitter, anchors and reporters from such media outlets trumpet their allegiances. A few years ago that would have made many journalists cringe. But I think that in this time of rapid reaction and response, recognizing that despite making this our profession all of us still retain a little bit of “fanism” on the inside — like Mr. Thornton and the Patriots — goes a long way toward us appreciating the variety of great sports writing available to us. It’s an important question, and one should always recognize the line between fan and journalist, but occasionally each possesses a little bit of the other. That is just the nature of the beast.
Paul Ryan posted on September 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
Sports have always served as entertainment for fans. The only difference from now and 20 years ago is that anyone with a computer can voice their opinion and either attempt to inform or entertain their readers. I completely agree with Professor Shorr’s comment that it is up to you (the reader) to distinguish whether the writer is a journalist or an entertainer.
Jerry Thornton put it right out there last week in class, stating he does not view himself as a journalist and had little to no training before working at WEEI or Barstool. He’s just a guy that enjoys writing, making movie references and entertaining his readers as often as he can. He rarely ever goes to games and often bases his stories off other articles to put his own twist on it as Ashley stated. It’s not people like Jerry that bother me as an aspiring journalist. It is those who have little to no formal journalism experience (like Jerry) that don’t attend games and consider themselves to be journalists. The people who write about sports “in their mother’s basements” as Jerry so eloquently put it. There are those who are self aware about their writing and consciously trying to entertain while others take themselves too seriously and misrepresent journalists as a rag-tag group.
Boston writers like Bob Ryan and Jackie MacMullan that appear on shows such as Around the Horn do not take the roundtable discussion as seriously as being a beat for a team, in my opinion. They do so to entertain, to gain more readers, to broaden their horizons. Sometimes it’s fun to argue about sports. This does not take away from their professional writing, but again as Professor Shorr said, it is up to the viewer to decipher whether or not Ryan and MacMullan take their TV gig as seriously as their writing one.
In the article debating Journalism or Fanism, the author makes a great point saying, “It’s a guilty pleasure, but we all love the soap opera off the pitch almost as much as the action on it.” People love entertainment. People love reading Jerry Thornton’s Kneejerk Reaction’s on Barstool every week because they’re funny and contain content you wouldn’t see in a conventional game recap. However, Jerry’s main motive is not to inform you. It is to entertain you. Despite what the writers may think of themselves, the reader needs to be able to distinguish between journalist and entertainer. If the reader cannot do so, then there is a bigger problem at hand.
Jonathan Lemons posted on September 17, 2012 at 11:00 am
The premise of this discussion is flawed if it supposes that the line between journalism and entertainment is becoming blurred, simply because there are more opinion shows, gossip sites and amateur blogs.
“Sports reporters walk a fine line every day, being asked to analyze events of the day for the countless opinion shows … as much to entertain as inform.”
Such a notion suggests a clear line between the two ever existed.
Professional sports exist purely for entertainment. As such, coverage of sports, unlike, say, politics, business or science, is inherently limited to entertainment as well. Outside of a very select few (think – sports agents, professional gamblers and, perhaps, sportswriters themselves), knowledge of sports has no real impact on society at large. Those who consume sports reporting do so purely for entertainment purposes, whereas the latest medical breakthrough, international crisis or insurance company acquisition could have profound real-world impact for readers.
As a field covering what is ultimately nothing more than entertainment, sports journalism, even at its best, can aspire to be nothing more than entertainment as well.
Sure, sports can provide the setting for stories with implications that reach far beyond the realm of entertainment, but in so doing, they necessarily cease to be sports stories.
The financial impact of an NHL lockout? Business story.
The concussion crisis in football? Medical story.
The Jerry Sandusky scandal? Legal story.
While many reporters cover sports in a classic journalistic manner, with straight facts and no frills, the purpose that coverage ultimately serves remains entertainment.
“Clay Buchholz to miss next start with back spasms.”
“Steve Nash traded to Lakers.”
No opinion, no bias, no analysis. Straight fact. And yet, all it does is inform us of what is still just entertainment.
So why all the hand-wringing over infusing opinion into something people are only consuming to be entertained by in the first place?
This again, however, misses the point. Opinion does not exist in isolation of facts. Since time-immemorial, people have presented and argued for their opinion by providing supporting factual evidence. Most relevant to this discussion, columnists have been injecting opinion into sports reporting for decades. Does the fact that amateurs are now able to do the same thing (and reach a theoretically equally wide audience) now make this something to be concerned about?
Of course not. Rather, the ability for anyone to publicize their take on the sports news of the day creates a meritocracy where the most skilled reporters, original thinkers and entertaining storytellers should have the edge.
The multitude of sources also creates a greater pressure to have the correct facts than ever before. Get something wrong and there will be 15 other sources to point it out.
So above all else, be correct. After all, “in the end it comes down to credibility.”
But keep in mind, it’s okay to be entertaining at the same time.
It’s not that “sports reporting can be both journalism and entertainment.” Sports reporting is, by definition, both.
Amy Barry posted on September 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm
A journalist’s job is to report the truth. To report what they know.
The writer of ‘Journalism or Fanism?’ said it best “Many have said that the media should simply report the truth, filter out the lies and tell you concrete facts. But, lets face it, this would result in empty papers, silent TV stations and leave fans starved of the 24/7 debate and discussion they crave. It’s a guilty pleasure, but we all love the soap opera off the pitch almost as much as the action on it.”
Today, society has either watched the game, saw highlights on ESPN or YouTube, or read Tweets on their Tweeter Feed. With the new media that exists today, the need for a recap or a game play-by-play is little or nonexistent. People want to know what happens after the whistle blows. This aspect is where sports journalists turn into entertainers.
Sports journalists entertain their readers by writing stories the average fan cannot rant and rave about. The story that only a select few has access to; press conference, locker room talks, agent’s comments and so on.
This is where a sports journalist differentiates from a fan. Journalists have the ‘in’ to the information a fan blogging at home wouldn’t without credentials to go into the press conferences and/or locker rooms. Also, a journalist establishes credibility with their viewers by reporting on the facts striving for accuracy, fairness and truth, not allowing personal bias to enter their stories, publish a correction when they make an error and attribute information when needed.
So, can fans be journalists? Yes and no. Fans can blog, tweet, Facebook, what have you, about sports. If they follow the same credibility that a journalist would, yes, they can be considered a journalist. However, for the most part, fans want their opinions to be heard, which is fine, but without credibility they are just opinions. Without credibility a fan cannot be considered a journalist, they can just entertain the audiences they have established with their opinions and knowledge.
On the other hand, journalists can be fans. Journalists report on the good, bad and ugly in sports, leaving bias out and stick to what makes them credible plus add a flare of their personality to acquire audiences. But, a journalist can route for a team to win or lose. They have to be discrete about it though, the press box is not a cheering section.
Jerry Thornton admitted that Barstool Sports is all about the page views. The site produces what the readers want to read, whether it be sports, national issues, comedy or women. This site, along with Deadspin and others, gains readers by reporting on secondhand knowledge as fans with a personality that viewers enjoy. Thornton even admitted, like Ashley mentioned, he doesn’t consider himself a journalist, he considers himself a writer. None of these writers can be credible for what they are producing. They are more or less entertainers giving the audience what they want.
Nate Boroyan posted on September 17, 2012 at 3:16 pm
I agree that sports journalism, as Jonathan pointed out, is inherently both journalism and entertainment. That said however, to limit this perspective to just sports may be misguided.
Outlets know that information, statistics and facts are not going to draw large audiences by themselves. Outlets have to structure their content in a way that will both entertain their base and provide quality information.
The positive that comes from focusing on the entertainment aspect is that it ensures that people will be watching/reading their content and possibly come away with some quality information.
Jerry Thornton accurately admits that he is a writer/entertainer/fan rather than a standard journalist. Still, there is market for what he does. His ‘knee jerk reactions” segment clearly draws fans of the Patriots who want to hear a fellow fans opinion on the game.
This is an interesting phenomenon in the sense that people trust or at least find a fan’s perspective worth reading. When a certain culture of fandom surrounds a team, fellow fan’s opinions and writing, if not more factual or in depth, are at least more emotional.
Essentially, as a reporter or writer, it comes down to how you market yourself. If you are along the lines of Thornton its important to admit that you are a fan first, commentator second because it allows the readers to approach a piece with a certain mindset. Call me old school, but when it comes to being a (J)ournalist, I believe it is important to remain as center as possible for the service you are providing. The job of a journalist isn’t to, as Professor Shorr mentioned, throw darts and hope that something sticks.
As Rebecca Stephenson’s article points out, taking this traditional line does tend to water down the sports news because intelligent players, coaches, owners, will not want to provide the media with anything they can run with and cause an off the field distraction. If something is mentioned that raises eyebrows then it is absolutely fair game.
Stephenson’s description of Sir Alex Ferguson’s press conference reminded me of what it like as a fan of the Patriots to listen to Bill Belichick speak with the media.
His press conferences are the worst form of entertainment in the sports industry. He is a master at playing the game. He knows his answers are short, provide little information and anger the masses. This allows the team to stay out of the news and off bulletin boards of opposing teams.
In this particular case however, it makes fans crave for the entertainment Thornton provides. While it is all his own opinion, he can at least provide fans with something to discuss.
For the most part, reporting on the Patriots is designed by the franchise to be so bland and concealed that it does not really matter what journalistic source you go to for Patriots news because the organization does a great job of keeping team issues in house.
Nick Hansen posted on September 17, 2012 at 3:47 pm
I would not have chosen to go in to Sports Journalism as a career had I not been entertained as a kid by writers like David Halberstam, John Feinstein, and Charlie Walters growing up.
Gay Talese, one of the greatest journalists of all time, perfected the craft of shaping his sports writing like a story. Read “An Afternoon on the Football Field” to get a better sense of the storytelling style. His stories informed and entertained. And he’s one of the best journalists, ever.
Jonathon is right that sports and entertainment are melting together. (ESPN stands for Entertainment Sports Programming Network.) It has always been that way, but the barriers to entry in to the sports world have been widened with the advent of blogging and social media. And that makes it a whole lot harder for legitmate journalists.
Sports journalists have to be knowledgeable and have a quality shtick if they want to survive in this day and age. Maybe you have fantastic prose (Bob Ryan). Maybe you are entertaining to listen to (PTI guys). Maybe you write like your talking about sports with your buddy over a beer (Simmons).
Whatever your angle is, if you’re entertaining, informative, and credible, you’re probably going to succeed in this business.
Greg Picker posted on September 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm
For better or worse, there has definitely been a trend that blends sports journalism and entertainment. That does not mean that all sports journalists are in the entertainment industry, but without a doubt television shows, blogs, twitter, etc. have cut the boundary between entertainers and traditional journalists that you’ll read in the past in the Globe.
Even a guy like Bob Ryan, who got his start as a Celtics beat reporter back in the late 1960’s has modernized to stay relevant in this era. Ryan can be seen often on Around the Horn and sometimes filling in on PTI. His Twitter account might not be updated quite as regularly as some younger journalists, but with over 30,000 followers he still maintains a strong presence.
It is quite simple that as the younger generation that has grown up with technology at its fingertips at all times is now the target demographic for a lot of news sources, it has to find a way to be entertaining. As Jerry Thornton said, the college demographic was not originally the intended target, yet that is now who frequents Barstool Sports the most. On ESPN, the show that is most obviously trying to stray away from traditional journalism is SportsNation. This show utilizes viewer interaction through social media. It hasn’t stopped on ESPN with SportsNation as NFL 32 began to air last season and it relies heavily on its viewers interacting with the hosts through social media.
The internet has also changed the way journalists write because of instant feedback. Instead of in the past when a story was only published in a newspaper, it would be much more difficult for the writer or newspaper to hear feedback from the average reader. Now, with every article posted online with a comments section, writers can instantly gauge the audience’s thoughts. On ESPN.com the typical article on the front page has thousands of comments. If the readers are not entertained the way they would hope, then the journalists can see that and change future articles to suit the needs of the readers.
Jason Lind posted on September 17, 2012 at 7:47 pm
An abundance of entertainment on television and the Internet has not ruined sports journalism. Instead, it asks for more careful attention from the consumer. Like Taylor said, as media expands, so does the content. Readers must be able to parse fact from opinion through research.
Since there are so many outlets for sports writing, there are more takes on it than ever before. Jerry Thornton and Malcolm Gladwell both write about sports, but that is likely the only thing that their writing has in common. They entertain in different ways. One does not claim to be a journalist; the other does.
It may be true that sports were created to entertain, but the visceral, emotional power of entertainment should not be underestimated. Entertainment has high value in society.
Not only can a sports journalist simultaneously entertain and inform, but he or she can also captivate an audience; make them think about something in a way they never have, or identify with an athlete on a human level. Writers like Gay Talese, Frank Deford, David Halberstam and Furman Bisher were meticulous reporters and inimitable entertainers. Today, Michael Lewis, Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman find fresh ways to entertain and inform. The mediums change, but some of the dynamics of the writing remain the same.
Hunter S. Thompson, a notorious obscurer of facts and entertainment, often wrote about his experiences with sports (see: http://english138.web.unc.edu/files/2011/08/The-Kentucky-Derby-is-Decadent-and-Depraved.pdf). His work is lauded for its humor and storytelling, bringing about the “gonzo journalism” that has found a home on the Internet. Thompson even wrote for ESPN’s “Page 2” before he died.
There is space for journalism and entertainment not only on the Internet, but also often within the same article. An intelligent reader can determine a credible source and distinguish fact from conjecture. As journalists, we can only strive for objectivity. It is an unattainable goal, and the readers realize that.
Kaleigh Fratkin posted on September 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Over the years, technology has grown to become a reliable resource for society. The growth of the Internet, in my opinion, is the reason why sports journalism is far from what it used to be. Quality sports writers used to report the hard facts of games, teams, players or scandals. Now, sports writers are trying to both inform and entertain viewers, like the article by Rebecca Stephenson stated. The Internet allows anyone to write about anything they want and think viewers will enjoy. When the concept that anyone can write about anything going on in the sports world arose, I think, is where sports journalism began to change creating uncertainty to what is considered sports journalism or who are considered sports journalists. This is why I agree with professor Shorr’s point that sports journalism can be both journalism and entertainment and that it’s the viewer’s choice to differentiate between what is journalism and entertainment.
Jerry Thorton is a good example of how anyone can write anything they want on the Internet and become a hit. Jerry said so himself that he’s not a journalist but he writes about sports. He loves comedy and sports, especially Football and his writing reflects that. He reports sports but puts a twist on them. Jerry entertains his viewers and that’s what makes people like him, they find his work interesting. Jerry reiterated numerous times that his job is to make people laugh. Jerry doesn’t go to the games, interview teams, players and coaches, but he writes about sports. So, this is where I think professor Shorr’s point arises once again that the viewer decides if they think Jerry’s work on Barstool or WEEI are quality sports journalism.
Just another argument I thought of that would support “let the buyer beware”…
I spoke with a producer at the Score (a Canadian sports television network) in May and one thing we discussed was how to make reporting sports entertaining. The producer explained to me how the field of sports reporting gets boring fast and what’s extremely difficult is finding a way to report and entertain. He said that’s why their network hires people like Gerry D and Cabbie on the street to make sports news enjoyable. Both of them are considered sports reporters: they go into locker rooms and interview players and coaches. But what makes them so funny to watch is that they add their own twist to each interview. The sports world leaves it up to the viewers to see them as sports reporters or not.
http://video.thescore.com/watch/best-of-gerry-dee-featuring-the-capitals-and-panthers
In this video, you can see that Gerry is hilarious and he does report sports news but he puts a comic slant on it, unlike a traditional journalist would. I think this is a good example of how sports reporting can be both journalism and entertainment.
Jashvina Shah posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:51 am
Professor Shorr mentioned Twitter, something that is important to this topic. If it weren’t for new media /social media platforms like Twitter and blogs, we may never have needed to have this conversation. But now the issue of sports journalism and entertainment are important because those forms, as well as sports talk radio and shows like Around the Horn, blur the spheres of entertainment and journalism.
Because the spheres are colliding, it is not important for readers to distinguish the difference between entertainment and journalism, merely the difference between fact and opinion.
In last week’s seminar, Jerry Thornton distinguished the lines by clearly saying he is not a journalist, just a writer. The reason he is so popular, as most of my classmates have pointed out already, is because entertainment is in demand. Fans like coming across content similar to what they find on Barstool. It is also why some news outlets are pushing entertaining content — because entertainment news drives page views.
Fans want to read entertaining things, as Rebecca Stephenson mentions in the article “Journalism or Fanism.” She wrote about everyone’s desire to read the opinions of journalists and her desire, as a journalist, to write opinion pieces instead of stories that rely on the “mundane” facts, as she calls them. At the same time, Around the Horn has legendary reporters such as Bob Ryan and other journalists on the air, debating topics for entertainment. Ian Rapoport, while he worked as a Patriots beat reporter for the Boston Herald, also used his blog and Twitter account to add a twist to his normal duties as a beat reporter.
This shows how sports journalism and entertainment are merging together, but it is important to realize sports journalism is a form of entertainment.
Recaps and any other news is still entertainment. Stephenson pointed out how fans do not read recaps and how she rarely writes them, but I do not agree — mostly because I see recaps frequently. Granted, most of these recaps I find are in newspapers such as The Newark Star-Ledger (here’s an example: http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2012/05/devils_find_themselves_down_a.html), but I believe there are readers and fans out there who still read those pieces.
Entertainment is distinguished by opinion, which means readers who can identify opinion will understand what pieces are solely written for entertainment. This is also more important because readers cannot say journalists are never entertainers, because at times they are.
Since sports journalism is a form of entertainment and journalists often spend time as entertainers, I do not think it is important for readers to be able to distinguish journalism from entertainment. This means it is more important for readers now how to tell the difference between fact and opinion.
Nate Weitzer posted on September 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Jerry Thornton and barstoolsports.com exist in a different sphere than your traditional media outlets. As Jerry himself pointed out this type of writing is not the product of leads, in-depth research, or insider access, it’s just one man’s take on the news gathered by ‘real journalists.’ Thornton’s brand of entertainment succeeds because of the level of creativity in his writing, not because he has more airtime or clout than the next person.
In this sense I would like to picture guys like Jerry as the heroes of internet journalism, fighting the big wig ‘studio gangsters’ for readership and clicks, because he has just as much information as most radio talk show host- only he doesn’t profess to be any sort of expert. He just presents the known facts in a humorous way and weaves in pop-culture references to keep the material light.
As alluded to in the article by Rebecca Stephenson, many journalists that contribute on the internet are simply fans looking for an outlet for their opinions. Jerry’s career began when he shared a sentiment experienced across New England after the Red Sox lost a heartbreaking series in 2003, and he has continued to write through shared experiences ever since.
My theory is that if none of us have true insider access to the inner workings of professional teams, then let’s connect through social media on an entertainment platform. Leave the in-depth analysis to beat writers with legitimate information, and barstoolsports.com can remain as a forum with content for everyman.
Phillip Kisubika posted on September 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm
One of things that stood out to me about what Jerry Thornton talked about last week was when he said, “It’s all about page views.” With the drastic decrease in newspaper circulation over the last decade or so, page views have become the number that people on the business side of journalism point to in order to determine success. For the longest time, a sports journalist’s job was to report on the games, which served as entertainment for their readers. Now more than ever, journalists have to be entertaining — either in how they write or the information they present — because the reader/viewer can get what they need without you.
It seems to me that if you want to be a well-known (or well-read) journalist in today’s world, you have to either a) have a built-in audience (people who have read you for years) or a monopoly on the coverage, b) bring something unique to the table or c) have enough of a following among your readers and colleagues that the little things you write for your publication get retweeted to or shared with a wider audience. A couple examples of journalists who bring something unique to the table are David O’Brien (the Braves beat writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) and Jonah Keri (a baseball writer for Grantland). Besides writing for the paper of record in Atlanta (built-in audience), O’Brien keeps readers up-to-date on all the happenings with the Braves with strong reporting and contributes lyrics from his favorite songs in every blog post (example: http://tinyurl.com/8zsz65z). Keri was one of the leaders of the stat revolution in baseball reporting and gives readers a deeper analysis of the game than most (example: http://tinyurl.com/8nnc4m9).
Overall, to answer the question of why this seminar was important, I think it was important for us to see the different sides of what sports journalism has become. Whether you’re writing for journalistic or entertainment purposes, you have to understand both sides nowadays and be informed. If you read blogs and entertainment sites or just newspapers and newspaper sites, you’re not getting the full picture. You can be relevant both ways, but it depends on what kind of story you want to tell.
Patrick Thomas posted on September 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm
I believe we would all be in denial a bit if we did not admit a certain part of us being journalists has to do with us being a fan of sports. The distinction for us is more concrete as to what we can and can not write though. The “Journalism or Fanism” article is relevant because we all fight the battle to write as objectively possible. That said, it is not purely wrong for a journalist to give an opinion. Bob Ryan does it on Around the Horn and so does Michael Wilbon on PTI. But the importance of a journalist’s job is presenting the facts.
Nowadays, a journalist goes after the most current story or most trending story to captivate an audience. Sports journalism is entertainment. Both sports journalism and entertainment writing are indeed, entertainment.
To say there was never a correlation between journalism and entertainment would dilute the whole meaning why there is even media coverage of big time sports—to show a huge stage for athletes to perform before the world. Look at Rick Reilly. He is more of a satirical columnist than a pure journalist but he has covered the Masters and other significant sports moments in the most professional manner possible. He has also won Sportswriter of the Year numerous times.
The main disparity between sports journalism and entertainment writing is the code of ethics that we as sports journalists abide by.
Regardless, it is up to the viewer or reader to differentiate between pure entertainment and journalism.
I guarantee many of my friends back home would consider bloggers to be journalists. It does not take a college degree to decipher the difference. I do believe it does require a knowledgeable sports fan to know who is a legitimate beat reporter and web contributor. We can write the best stories, tell the best facts, and give the inside scoop to breaking news. Whether or not the viewer knows our work as distinct from entertainment is outside of our grasp.
Jerry Thornton might have said it best when asked by one of the students in our class if he considered himself a journalist. He absolved himself of that title saying, “I don’t hold myself to that same code. I write purely for entertainment”.
From tweets to websites dedicated to making light of sports, fans and even many journalists enjoy the light-hearted nature it presents. Entertainment writing and even radio is geared toward the “instant gratification” generation who most frequently accesses the Internet via cell phone, computer and twitter accounts.
Take Scoops Callahan for example who works as the producer on KTCK 1310 The Ticket in Dallas for the “BaD” show from 1-4PM
http://scoopscallahan.com/why-are-you-yelling
Hardline sports journalism seeks out facts, gives little analysis, and leaves the debating most often to former athletes or similar to PTI. Roy Reiss, a former local sportscaster from Ch. 7 news, mentioned in a 2011 article titled “The State of The Media” the pitfalls of a reporter giving too much opinion when the Pats drafted Devin McCourty. His warning is not let “you, the reporter, become the story”. Sadly, it appears more journalists have shifted to this dynamic instead of giving the facts. Unless the viewer is aware, this type of journalism may be misrepresented.
Matt DeFonzo posted on September 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm
One of the implicit themes running through some of the responses to Professor Shorr’s post is the question of whether a sports reporter can be both a journalist and an entertainer. Taylor, for instance, thinks a reporter should know what category he/she falls into, writing that, “at the end of the day, whoever is bringing the information to consumers needs to know which side of the fence he’s on.”
I myself am split on the extent to which sports reporters can be both journalists and entertainers.
On the one hand, when reporters play multiple roles it can confuse viewers into thinking they’re getting news when they’re really getting opinion. Think any guest who appears on “Around the Horn.”
But on the other hand, wouldn’t a beat reporter, a journalist who attends all practices and games and conducts interviews in the locker room, have one of the most qualified opinions out there? They know more about the team they’re covering than any entertainer or fan ever could, which means they have more empirical evidence to support their ideas. If you are an entertainer, you might be amiss not to at least invite beat reporters onto your shows.
Plus, human beings aren’t mindless drones that are either objective or opinionated. Everyone has an opinion and I would theorize everyone wants to express it. I’m not sure we should go around saying there has to be some fine line between the people who give opinions and the people who are objective journalists, especially when it comes to sports. Reporting on sports is supposed to be fun, so maybe everyone should be able to weigh in.
True, there might be cases, like, say, the Jerry Sandusky scandal, where a story is too serious to let just anyone spout off his or her thoughts. And when an entertainer is trying to rouse controversy, it might be advisable to just stand on the metaphorical sidelines, but perhaps everyone should be able to say what they think when it comes to many sports stories.
Then again, can you legitimately expect your readers to view you as an objective journalist if your give your opinions on entertainment shows? If you want to be truly objective as a sports reporter, maybe you shouldn’t be involved in anything more opinionated than column writing.
Hence, I am still debating whether or not I think a sports reporter can be a journalist and an entertainer. Maybe it should be examined on a case by case basis, with reporters being sure to police themselves if they’re giving their opinion too much on a story that doesn’t call for it. Life is complex, and there are many shades of gray to the issue of whether you can do sports journalism and sports entertainment.
Bobby LeBlanc posted on September 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm
The average sports fan may not see the difference between sports journalism and sports entertainment. He or she may not see the difference because the line is not very clear-cut today. Furthermore, the average fan probably does not even care as they might view everything to do with sports as entertainment alone. Sports are meant to entertain, but there is certainly a difference between journalist and entertainer.
I have come to see the difference, although to be honest, I didn’t give this topic too much thought until last Thursday’s seminar with Jerry Thornton. It is definitely important for us to realize that there is a difference between journalist and entertainer. Like Thornton, I think one day we will have to distinguish whether we are journalists, entertainers, or maybe even both. He came right out and told us in the seminar that he does not consider himself a journalist. I’m glad he can admit that. This is important to think about because there are jobs out there for journalists and entertainers in the sports world.
As far as shows like PTI and Around the Horn go, I see them as pure entertainment. I don’t watch the shows to get my sports news. I watch PTI because I have already read about everything Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon will debate about. I want to hear what they have to say because it is entertaining but also because I do believe they are very knowledgeable about sports. I realize that they worked hard as journalists to get to where they are today, but I turn to PTI for entertainment, not sports news. Personally, I think Kornheiser and Wilbon are great examples of sports entertainers today because they can back up their opinions with facts and statistics.
Twitter is a social media website that both sports journalists and entertainers use to get their news out. I have actually come to love Twitter in order to get sports news from some of my favorite writers. I follow both Jerry Thornton and Greg Bedard (our next guest) on Twitter. Thornton is a funny guy so I follow him for pure entertainment reasons only. Bedard is a professional sports journalist and beat reporter for the New England Patriots. I follow him for any and all news on the Patriots. He even uses a separate Twitter feed on game day to tweet about any action going on during the game. I find this feed extremely helpful while watching Patriots games. I think in this case, Twitter is not “killing sports journalism 140 characters at a time” but rather strengthening it.
https://twitter.com/GlobePatsLive
Thornton and Bedard are two great examples of a sports entertainer and a sports journalist. Each are great at what they do, and they both use Twitter effectively to get their word out. As aspiring sports journalists, I think it is important to realize that their crafts are different but important in their own separate ways.
Mary Gagliardi posted on September 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Quite often – more than not – most people reading the sports stories and blogs have already seen the games and already know the results. They have witnessed the plays and have watched the cool sequences multiple times due to the miracle of DVR. Thats where fans, bloggers, and journalists who may not have even been at the game come in; they provide more to the story than a bland recap of the game. While these bloggers may not be the expert in the sports journalism field, they do provide a common man perspective. They also often add comedy and say things that many “official journalists” wouldn’t dare say- for example Barstool Sports. This is what gets hits, and what keeps readers coming back; the entertainment, “wow” factor of their journalism.
Readers have to use their common sense and realize that a fan blog is not the Boston Globe sports section and that the information may not be as fact checked or accurate. But, most people go to the blogs for the entertainment, not the factual information.
Greg Huntoon posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:45 am
Everyone keeps going back to the fact that Jerry Thornton doesn’t consider himself a journalist. And while it’s great that he can make the distinction, it really doesn’t matter. After Thursday night, 25 of us knew that he feel that way, but the rest of his readers probably did not. The fact that Jerry feels that way is not going to make me read his Knee Jerk Reactions pieces solely to make me laugh. He brings up some good points and is able to back them up with facts. As mentioned by Prof. Shorr, it comes down to the readers to determine what is entertainment journalism about sports and what is entertaining sports journalism.
There are plenty of sites that are out there to entertain, but can still provide sports information like a journalist would. Consequently, there are journalists out there who are great sports journalists, but can still provide entertainment.
Take Woody Paige for example. Paige was on the field in Atlanta for the game on Monday. When he writes about the game for the Denver Post, it is journalism, but when he references his article and what he observed on the sideline on Around the Horn, it is purely entertainment? You cannot simply look at a program or a person and peg them as credible or not, lots of factors need to be taken into account.
For me, I look for facts. They can be presented in a fun, entertaining way in any forum, but if the person can back up what they are saying with numbers, quotes and facts, I’ll buy into what they’re saying. It’s when opinions drive a piece that I turn away. But this is how I look at it. It’s up to each reader to determine how he or she differentiates for between the two.
Sandeep Chandrasekhar posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Nowadays, journalism has become such a loosely defined term with the growth in social media and the simplicity of creating new websites and blogs. Anyone can establish their own website or blog, either through wix, blogspot, wordpress, or other medium. As a result of the expansion of Internet, people do not have to become qualified journalists to write their own blogs.
Barstool Sports is a prime example of how writing has changed over the past few years. Writers David Portnoy and Jerry Thornton use several derogatory words in their blogs and write in colloquial language, in an attempt to connect with the “common man”. I’ve seen many typos, grammatical language, and very ordinary speech in their blogs; yet, their style of writing is able to connect with their target audience of college students.
Furthermore, their goal is to differentiate themselves from the regular news sites and create a newsworthy blog where people would actually view their site. If they created the same content as more credible sites like ESPN and Sports Illustrated, no one would even bother looking at this site. Barstool Sports is still an opinionated blog with added humor but as long as writers like Jerry Thornton back up their reasonings with facts, I do not see any problem with the content they produce, even if they combine sports journalism with entertainment.
The athletes and fans are more attached than ever with the expansion of social media, so the general public has a closer relationship to the celebrities and vice versa. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable to mix in sports with entertainment because fans make a big deal over every tweet or status these athletes post. Whether they like it or not, athletes serve as role models to others, so they will naturally become extremely scrutinized. If they do something either really funny or stupid, the public will become interested because they follow these athletes on a regular basis.
Websites like Barstool Sports are used solely for entertainment purposes, not for newsworthy information as Thornton mentioned to us. If that’s their purpose, I don’t see any problem with them doing something different and incorporating humor with sports because they need to distinguish themselves from other media outlets.
Andrew posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Journalists or Entertainers readers beware, is what Professor Shorr contests in his most recent blog post. In today’s social-media driven world sports reporting can be both journalism and entertainment and for the most part he is correct.
However, I consider myself, like most of you, to be a knowledgeable sports fan and when I want to read about what happened in practice; or what was Tom Coughlin’s reason for yelling vehemently at Greg Schiano; or even why Amare Stoudemire took on that infamous glass door I will read articles written by beat reporters that include no opinion and that is sports journalism.
When I want to l be entertained I will seek out Stephen A. Smith’s article or try to get through all 9000 words of Bill Simmons’ articles because they are entertainers.
A large majority of the entertainment piece stems from our ability to directly communicate with our favorite athletes through social media sites. Our need and want to know everything our favorite stars are doing off the field has contributed to the intense popularity of sites like Barstoolsports and TMZ-sports. It is not David Portnoy’s fault we can’t go a second without knowing who Derek Jeter is dating this week.
What has me upset this week is the fact that Jerry Thornton and guys like him are so damn successful. I am at Boston University being taught the traditional methods of journalism and reporting. I sign up and take classes with the hopes that my writing, on-camera presence and editing skills will all improve. Jerry Thornton did none of this. He didn’t spend hours in an edit room to perfect a piece that will only air for 90 seconds. He didn’t get laughed at while trying to pitch a story idea to a professor/editor. He admitted he isn’t a journalist, and frankly I blame my fellow readers not Jerry Thornton for giving these entertainers so much clout. It’s the entertainers that get the page hits not the true journalists and it sucks.
I think Professor Shorr brought in Jerry Thornton to class to give us a wake up call: TIMES ARE CHANGING. Today’s audience doesn’t care that a sports writer/blogger has a degree in journalism. The majority will take the entertainment value over quality and that’s an attitude I don’t think I will ever respect.
Davis VanOpdorp posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm
What a lot of people have reiterated I definitely agree with. The line between journalism and entertainment is fading. However, it is worth mentioning how competitive the journalism market is in 2012. There are so many different media outlets that people can get their information from, especially for sports. Therefore, those who make the more appealing product to read or watch are going to have higher ratings and more clicks.
Now, what I believe has happened is that people have taken the term journalism and given it a loose definition to provide shock value, more attention to their publication, or entertainment. For example, over the summer I worked in Worcester, Massachusetts. The main newspaper there is the Worcester Telegram and Gazette. The columnists at the Worcester T & G aren’t journalists; they write their opinion as fact and put it in the newspaper. This became particularly troublesome when the baseball team I worked for, the Worcester Tornadoes, started to have money problems, and the newspaper was speculating on what was going on with the organization. The paper tweeted out misinformation about the team because it was what they thought was happening. It became a Media Relations nightmare.
Therefore, I would like to respond to Mr. Greg Huntoon directly. We all know that Mr. Jerry Thornton is not a journalist, especially since he said so himself. The fact is, it does matter, because a lot of people on the internet can’t make the distinction. We know that Mr. Thornton doesn’t believe that Tim Tebow is the antichrist. However, people might think that Mr. Thornton might think that Tim Tebow is the antichrist. Now, granted, people that take his word seriously needs to learn a) how the internet works, and b) what barstool sports is. But still, it’s worth mentioning, like Mr. Shorr has above, that people need to be aware of what the source of their information is.
Caitlin Donohue posted on September 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Journalism has largely evolved with technology over the past ten years, and as Professor Shorr said, part of that evolution is the fact that “journalism” is now a more loosely defined term than ever before. A journalist used to be narrowly defined as an intelligent reporter who delivered truthful stories. Now, with the power of the Internet and its numerous social forums, almost anyone can put themselves into the role of “journalist.” Social media (sports blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) provides such an abundance to news stories that you can access at literally any moment of any day. I think that this convenient, easy access is instant gratification for sports audiences. Average fans are far less concerned with whether or not they are reading a story by a highly prestigious journalist and more concerned with receiving interesting news.
While I believe that journalism should always be united with entertainment on some level, I also think that there are too many instances in which entertainment takes precedence over journalism. Referring back to the Ordway vs. Valentine controversy of last week, clearly Ordway jeopardized his legitimacy as a journalist to probe Valentine in a rude manner, which he knew would entertain his audience. Ordway has advanced his career from humble beginnings at a small radio station to a radio and television personality, and he clearly lost some of his integrity along the way.
Jerry Thornton’s visit was very enlightening because he considered himself to be an entertainer first. He knows his audience, which is primarily composed of men in college, and he knows how to appeal to their interests. Despite his success on Barstool, he still maintains that the website has very few straight sports stories. He sees Barstool as an instant way to reach a broad audience and rejects the idea that he is a “journalist.” I was impressed by Thornton’s acknowledgement that his work was not necessarily “journalism,” but I think that an average fan does not worry about the entertainer/journalist line.
As Kendall said, since we are studying journalism at a university, we are more aware of the sometimes fine line between “journalism and fanism.” As aspiring sportswriters, we are more critical of sports articles on Barstool or other blogs. We want to read pieces written by intelligent individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the topic at hand. While I am not discrediting the non-journalist population, I do think that entertainment often takes priority with avid sports fans, and that is why websites like Barstool continue to thrive.
Stephanie Jarvis posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I don’t think anyone mentioned this yet, but in my opinion it’s important to know your target audience. Mr. Thornton pointed out that things are prepared differently depending on the outlet and the demographics of the audience. For example, something that goes up on Barstool Sports would be formatted differently if the Boston Globe wanted to feature the same story on their website. Just today, Barstool had a post about Hakeem Nicks being downgraded to out for Thursday’s game. I traveled over to ESPN’s website, and sure enough, they also had a post about Nicks.
Although I am not a frequent reader of Mr. Thornton’s work, I think it was important and helpful to hear his thoughts about his own journey and subsequent career. To me, sports really acts as an outlet, where you can step away from your troubles for a few hours and get away from the real world. When asked about his work, Mr. Thornton made the same distinction. He said it’s about making people laugh, and that it could maybe be an outlet for some people. He also said that he strives to stay on top of the trending topics of the day, which is really one of the important goals of journalism.
Arguing about whether Mr. Thornton is a journalist is kind of a moot point. He’s found a way to utilize what he’s good at, in humor, and combine it with his passion for sports. We can all take away this little piece of advice from the discussion: discover what makes you different and what you can bring to the table that those competing for your job cannot.
Tim Larew posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:22 pm
One of the most interesting turns sports journalism, and journalism in general, has taken over the years has come as a result of the growth and increased power of the internet.
Years ago, there was more or less one way to become a well-respected sports journalist. Aspiring journalists went to college, studied the trade, graduated with a journalism degree, and earned a job in the industry. It was cut and dry; there weren’t several potential routes to take in order to reach the end goal. If someone wanted to cover, broadcast, or write about sports in one form or another, the path was clear.
Fast forward to today’s world; someone with a passion for sports (or music, film, clothes… take your pick) can essentially become a sports journalist with no job title, no college degree, and little to no formal experience. By creating a blog, which can take all of two hours for something basic, anyone can have access to the world – and vice versa – as a result of the power of the internet. Now, there are numerous ways to achieve that end goal of becoming a well-respected writer, reporter, or journalist without going through the lengthy, traditional process.
While someone who writes about a certain subject material for a blog – no matter how big or small – isn’t automatically granted the reputability as a writer for a large scale publication (such as the Boston Globe, for example) is, they can still gain that traction and dependency through their own means, even if the road is longer.
One benefit of becoming a sports journalist in a non-traditional way is that a writer has more freedom to add his/her own personal style or flair. It was very interesting hearing Jerry Thronton talk about his own personal experiences as a writer for Barstool Sports. He explained how he’s a natural born comedian – not a sports journalist. But combining his passion for sports with his affinity with humor and gift of being able to make people laugh, he was able to capitalize on it all and found the perfect opportunity to showcase all of his talents.
Personally, I have just as much respect for a writer like Jerry as I do for journalists like Bill Simmons, Rick Reilly, Bob Ryan and more. All do what they do for the love of the game, and all found their own unique ways to make an impact on the sports world while doing what they love most. While I don’t think anyone chooses Barstool over ESPN to get their daily sports news (and Jerry acknowledged this as well), what readers to get with Barstool and blog sites like it are new angles on the major sports news trailing across ESPN’s Bottomline – as well as a good laugh along the way.
In the end, it’s all about how well you do something that you have passion for. It doesn’t really make a difference what platform you use or how you attain that position in which you have the platform to work with. Jerry found his platform, his voice. The cornerstone he uses to share his story with the world is his humor. Other more traditional sports journalists might use knowledge and a wealth of knowledge, but regardless, well-respected writers are well-respected writers no matter how they go about achieving that position. Sports reporting doesn’t have to be cut and dry anymore. There is always a story to tell and always a new way to tell it. Jerry is a perfect example of tapping into his passions and making the most of it all.