fshorr's blog

The one thing I couldn’t stop thinking about the entire time that Kevin and Trenni were in class, was the connection between today’s sports journalism and the wider world of journalism as a whole and the state that it is in. All the talk about “hot takes” and writing stories just for clicks, sounds eerily similar to the fake news phenomenon that took place during the presidential election, not to mention this new world of “alternative facts.” When talking about Kirk and Callahan, Trenni mentioned how with them you sometimes have to “sift through and figure out what’s legit.” That’s exactly what you have to do every time you see a post on Facebook that your aunt or uncle shared. What website is this from? Is it a reliable source? Is the headline inflammatory just to get attention? These are all questions you should be asking yourself every time you see a questionable post or article. They can be paralleled with, Is Kirk just saying that to make people made? Does Callahan really believe what he just said? Are they disagreeing and yelling at each other just for the ratings? At a time where every thing you see online is questioned, it seems like sports journalism is following a similar path.

I have a tough time accepting the line, “If people aren’t sending you hate mail then you’re not doing your job.” I get the point of it. I get that receiving hate mail or having people say negative things about you means people are actually listening/watching and that they think your opinion means something. But in the long run, isn’t the job of a sports journalist or sports reporter to report on sports? It doesn’t include in the job description that you have to make people mad while you’re doing it. I know that when people say this they mean without those people you wouldn’t have the ratings to keep your show or talk show afloat, I’m just not really a fan of the terminology.

Personally, I don’t really think there is a problem with the NFL selling tickets to fans for Super Bowl Media Day. I do wish that they would be a bit more selective about who they give media credentials to though. Like Trenni said, they give credentials to almost anyone (except Barstool) so it can sometimes be nice for the players just to see a familiar face. I think they should keep media day about the players, sure let fans buy tickets to watch, but let the serious journalists be the ones allowed to ask them questions to at least make it a little less of a joke.

ESPN popularized the phrase “embrace debate” for use in mainstream sports media. It is of little surprise that ESPN has embraced debate-centric television programming given its trademark ownership over ‘EMBRACE DEBATE’. Fox Sports, a competing sports network, has followed suit with ‘Undisputed’ and ‘Speak For Yourself’. Roundtable debates over “hot take” topics govern each episode, often adding fuel to the world-wide-web of chatter. A controversial “hot take” can influence the rise and fall of visits and clicks on social media platforms and webpages.

As noted by Kevin Duffy, revenue is based on clicks. Clicks generate interest from advertisers and influence the amount of money advertisers are willing to pay for space. Further emphasizing the importance of clicks, Duffy briefly talked about the use of slideshows as click-bait. Slideshows serve to increase the number of clicks per visit by laying a trail of back-and-forth navigational buttons. I take annual trips on slideshow trails, providing at least 30 clicks per viewing of an NBA first-round mock draft. And another 30 to view a recap of the draft. And another 30 or 60 or 90 to review published predictions in light of the final results.

Headlines can also serve as click-bait. Headlines compete for attention to generate clicks, acting in a role not wholly unlike movie trailers. As a user of Apple News, a news-aggregating application, I often find myself opening an article solely due to the surface-level intrigue induced by the headline. And more often than not, the article fails to meet the hype of its headline.

Tweets can create a similar effect. When an athlete posts a polarizing tweet, twitter users and sports media members will often respond with passionate reactions. Articles discussing the tweet will come into existence within the hour. Radio talk shows and television shows often provide coverage and analysis as well, sometimes bringing in former players and coaches to contribute to the discussion. A public figure can widen the market created by the original tweet by sharing a controversial or otherwise noteworthy response. A single 140-character tweet can prove to be very profitable for sports media.

Having access to today’s 24-hour news cycle has its benefits and costs. Events of public interest are rapidly reported and widely shared, reducing delivery time and increasing the number of informed people. We can follow a developing news story in real time while soaking in expert analyses and worldwide reactions. But what about the unintended consequences of rapid news reporting and wider dissemination? Are we enjoying these benefits at the expense of quality and substance? Are the lines that distinguish sports journalism from sports media blurrier than ever?

Trenni Kusnierek stressed the importance of exercising critical thinking when consuming products of sports media. I am very much in agreement. Consumers would be wise to learn how to distinguish journalistic work from entertainment, and facts from opinions. People are entitled to their own opinions, but facts ought not to receive the same treatment. The better we become at separating fact from opinion, perhaps we will be better at distinguishing news from entertainment.

Before Stephen A. Smith and Max Kellerman give their “first takes” on a topic, integral journalistic work is conducted. Absent investigatory work and verification of the resulting information, “first takes” would likely devolve into speculative banter, potentially opening the doors to defamation lawsuits. I will continue to “embrace debate” as long as they are grounded in facts. Instead of altogether shunning the rapid changes in the 21st Century information economy, journalists might be better off embracing them but never losing sight of their ethical responsibilities.

Trenni and Kevin

I never really thought about the lack of sports journalism I truly paid attention to until class. I receive all my news from 140 characters, what I hear from others, or a simple notification that pops up on my phone. But that’s not journalism. In addition to Twitter, and other social media platforms, most of us receive our “news” from opinion sites such as BarStool Sports. For me, however, I hate BarStool and was genuinely glad to hear that Trenni Kusnierek feels the same way. The problem with websites with BarStool is that we don’t know what’s true and what’s opinion. It’s not a reliable source, but people treat it as if it is. The same problem goes for Twitter. Did the person that sent the tweet receive the information from the source, or are they just coming up with it. As journalists, we shouldn’t be as lazy. We should be reading the articles, but instead we just read the little preview that was posted on social media. Like Trenni said, “you have to figure out who is a trained journalist, and who is a fan.”

I, personally, don’t see any issue with selling tickets to media day. It’s an opportunity for fellow sports fans to see the players and hear the conversations they’re having. It’s also a way for aspiring journalists to see how something like media day is put together and happens. That being said, they should be more strict with who gets credentials. Only well known journalists and media outlets should have direct access to the players.

The main part of our talk with Kevin and Trenni that stuck with me is that we have to start somewhere small. Trenni mentioned that she started in a small town Wisconsin, and Kevin started with Connecticut high school sports. Everyone always has a dream that to start big immediately. However, like Kevin said, you need to start somewhere small to really learn your craft. You may think you’re prepared when you graduate college, but you’re not. You need to start somewhere small, and really work on your writing style, before you can make it to the bigger outlets. Another interesting thing that Trenni mentioned is that no one wants to be a sideline reporter. Growing up, I always thought that was the coolest job because you are right on the field. However, after hearing Trenni talk about how those girls come off dumb, and aren’t respected enough, it made me rethink that position. The well respected reporters are on the shows really discussing the sports, not just asking the players short questions after a game.

Sports journalism is a field filled with some of the most divisive characters on television. Trenni’s comment of having to be not just interesting, but almost controversial, in order to get attention in the industry.
Today, sports journalism is dominated by pundits who are as hated as they are liked. People like Skip Bayless, Shannon Sharpe, and Dave Portnoy dominate the sports media scene and do so by spewing “hot takes” that incite their followers into lengthy arguments.
As I mentioned in class, I think the line comes when people move out of the realm of what they believe in. When a writer like Dan Shaughnessy pens a column berating Tom Brady for not chastising Donald Trump, or even downplaying their relationship, the article is guaranteed to get clicks. But, an unpopular opinion turns to click bate when the writer or broadcaster’s words fail to reflect their true feelings on the matter.
In that same vein, Kevin brought up the point that a lot of sports television and radio has diverged from journalism into the land of entertainment. Now, I understand the temptation to characterize anything that comes through the airways as entertainment, especially with guests and segments tailored to listeners and boosting ratings. However, almost all of these segments and interviews contain sports journalism. The stats that are used to back up someone’s argument – despite the argument itself being the entertainment – and the thought-out questions asked to guests are perfect examples of that journalism.
Sports journalism is at a crossroads where it is blending with entertainment and doing so in a way where the line becomes hard to find. This seemingly overwhelming want for clicks or ratings dominates the industry, causing ‘hot takes’ and segments that lack a visible presence of journalism to dominate television and radio. And while print journalism is a lot less entertainment-centric – with exceptions – the majority of sports journalism has to look itself in the mirror and decide how much further down this uber-entertainment road it wants to go down.

What is Journalism in 2017 is a topic that has been talked about in every one of my classes through my time at COM. And it’s a question that is becoming much harder to answer. I used to think Journalism was only writing, and radio was talking, and t.v., was well, t.v. But of course that’s not the case.



As a Journalist in 2017 you have to know how to perform in all three of those facets. Not just to get the story out in multiple formats, but for your brand. If you’re recognizable on t.v. then people will know your name and read your writings, and pay attention when you are a guest spot on a radio show.



Kevin and Treni brought interesting perspectives to the discussion. Both thought that the industry is still trying to figure itself out, especially with the question of what is Journalism. Is it investigative reporting? Is it interviewing? Is sports talk radio considered Journalism, if they’re talking about a game they weren’t even at? 



Treni talked about how people call her hot and she hates it. She said if she provides good content then people will focus on the content over her looks. And I think that’s true not just for females, but for people in general. It doesn’t matter about your looks, your socio-economic background, or religion – if you’re a good reporter and can get the story and tell it in an engaging way, then you’ll be a great Journalist.