It should be as simple as just changing the channel or, heaven forbid, turning off the program, but we have come to depend on sports media critics, as much for advance warning , as solid post game analysis as well…I suppose we all like to have our opinions validated and can’t wait for a “review” that generally agrees with our own…But is there a value to having a sports media column?
Jack Craig started the first column locally and parlayed it into a national column in the Sporting News, reaching millions in the process…Not surprisingly we now have Twitter critics, perhaps the prototypical “bloggers in the basement”…As a viewer, it’s your job is to differentiate between those choices…Ken Fang has been following and writing about the sports media scene since 2005 and if you’ll forgive the reference, “he built it and they came”…What started as an outlet for his opinion has now grown to, by his own count, some 2.5 million unique visitors…But Ken takes a different approach unlike some of his more celebrated brethren. “They just seem to hate everybody. They just seem to want to pound and say that nothing is right with sports television. I’ll give credit. I don’t want to say ‘get of my lawn’ which a lot of writers can’t seem to accept these days”…
Fang joined Chad Finn of the Boston Globe recently at a Boston University sports journalism seminar and as the latest in a line of successors on Morrissey Boulevard, Finn’s approach is based, first and foremost, in a fundamental journal principle. “The checks and balances of anything are important. If you’re dealing with people who try to take advantage of a situation, who aren’t honest about their intentions and its effects, you need to be the person when something isn’t being done right, or is being done disingenuously, you’re the one who let’s people know about that”…
Yet, the critic is just one voice and it’s important to remember that…Well, maybe you can’t quite convince NBC Sports or Twitter of that…Witness the case of one Guy Adams, who summarily felt the network’s wrath after taking them to task on their Olympic coverage… Adams is a freelancer…Grantland , on the other hand, is a website that boasts deep pockets and Bill Simmons, among other notable contributors…When Bryan Curtis wrote virtually the same column, you didn’t hear a (spoken) word….
Like anything else, sports media criticism exists in many forms…and i guess that’s the point…follow Bruce Allen, follow Chad Finn, follow Ken Fang…It’s another opinion but it’s one that’s put forth with experience and research and thought….They aren’t the most popular members of the media community , the people they write about can be very thin skinned, but the ones that have done it for a while, do it well and take pride in what they do…
26 Comments
Amy Barry posted on October 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Sports journalists have the responsibility of reporting on teams and sports in an objective and fair fashion.
It’s crucial that the journalists are held accountable for their actions in some way, shape or form; queue sports media critics. Ken Fang used the example how TBS misspelled Willie Mays name on screen during game one of the Yankees-Tigers ALCS series. “Media need to be called out for making mistakes,” Fang said. “Especially if it’s misspelling names.”
But, what gives these critics the right to make criticisms? That perhaps, as harsh as it sounds, these critics didn’t make it as journalist, broadcasters or producers in the sports world so they made a job critiquing the people who did. Chad Finn has a professional background in journalism. He even writes the Patriots Unconventional Preview for the Boston Globe while Fang worked with video and podcast before.
So maybe they do have a background in the industry, but, they aren’t in the action – making regular lock room trips, in the stands at games, behind the camera or in the editor’s room. Isn’t not being on the scene what separates bloggers from journalist?
The critics offer their opinion backed up by research and experience, but seems to me that anyone can become a critic if they pay enough attention to the branches of sports media. However, the criticism of sports has changed, now sports critics are breaking stories. The stories are more about the networks – NBC, CBS, ESPN – and their broadcasters as if the broadcasters were the athletes and the networks were the teams.
So, maybe these critics didn’t make it as a sports journalist, instead they evolved critiquing sports media. Now, readers know when their favorite sports broadcaster is changing networks or which station is winning the bidding war for the NCAA men’s basketball contract. Personally, I believe sports media critics have changed. They started off being spell checkers or calling out the wrongs of fellow journalist into starting an entire new branch of sports journalism, sports medium outlets.
I wonder how long it’ll take for the critics to get critics.
Kendall Salter posted on October 22, 2012 at 8:39 am
You don’t see many sports media criticism columns anymore, at least in traditional journalism forms (newspaper). As both Amy and Professor Shorr have noted above, much of this media commentary and criticism comes from the vast expanse of the Internet. I have found that online forums are particularly conducive to those who wish to either examine the media, in its many forms, or sit back and take pot shots. I suppose that both have value, though pot-shots are easy to take and need not be backed up.
Those are some great thoughts from Amy, but I disagree with her premise that sports media critics don’t necessarily have the chops or credibility to do what they do (I hope that I am reading that correctly, Amy.) I would respond by asking — what makes film critics qualified to do what they do? They are often not the ones making the movies, directing, sitting behind a camera on the set. But they know when they see something good and something bad. This, in my opinion, is the role of sports media critics. The best ones know that when something stinks, it is OK to air it out. They also, like Mr. Fang, know that even in this charged era of mudslinging on the web, it is acceptable to praise.
I think that having this seminar is important to understanding that as a journalist, people will be there to know whether or not you are doing your job. It’s the same as in any other position. Having those “checks and balances” is important to maintaining a product and profession that remains fair and accurate, because clearly mistakes are made. One of my favorite things to read was the old ESPN ombudsman column. It has since fallen off in quality (again, in my opinion), but I learned so much about what was right, wrong, acceptable, questionable and about the standards needed to make a story solid both as a story and factually.
In short, we need media critics, wherever they are and whomever they write for. Even “bloggers in the basement” — a stereotype that is well outdated by now — make good points occasionally.
Paul Ryan posted on October 22, 2012 at 9:50 am
Sports media critics have quite a different role than they did even five years ago. With the advent of twitter and the expansion of the internet, just about anyone can critique sports journalists and don’t need to get paid to do so. Anyone could have picked up that Mays/Mayes miscue during the NLCS broadcast (which now has turned into a job for Deadspin it seems), but few have the insight Ken and Chad have when it comes to what’s going on inside the business. Ken mentioned several times he had the scoop on Dan Patrick going to NBC Sports Network, a scoop that arguably only a sports media critic would get. Now whether or not you’re interested in Patrick changing jobs is a different story.
To go off a point made by Kendall, I don’t think media critics and movie critics are the correct comparison to make. One is making comments on the action, while the other is making comments on people talking about the action. People go to movies typically whether it is reviewed well or poorly, but often people do not tune out to broadcasters because Ken Fang pointed out they made one mistake.
Honestly, I understand the idea of keeping journalists in check, but that’s what the comment sections are for. That’s what blogs are for. That’s what Deadspin has become. There are those that find what Ken called his “niche” audience, but I see little value to sports media critics.
Taylor Williams posted on October 22, 2012 at 10:52 am
It’s ironic that in a time when sports journalists have more tools and avenues to reach bigger audiences than ever before, we have fewer people to monitor them. Critics were among the first to go when print media began downsizing, their domains notwithstanding. For decades, newspaper and magazine critics served as watchdogs of the public’s consumption of entertainment, their entitlement stemming from their indisputable knowledge on the subject and carefully cultivated trust from their readers.
Sports media critics need to possess those attributes, and so do the people they’re covering. But, intangible similarities aside, media critics are essential to our work. The only thing we have as journalists is our credibility. And that extends beyond writing and reporting to the way we market ourselves in this age of digital transparency. For better or worse, journalists need mistakes to be identified, and sometimes editors are too busy. Still, straddling the line between constructive criticism and reputation tarnishing can be tricky, which is why it should be left to the pros.
I can also buy the idea of checks and balances; after all it’s the foundation of our governmental structure. But the efficacy of media critics in that role has been devalued by the plethora of independent bloggers.
That’s the major concern to the relationship as it exists today. Take Ken’s opening comment: “They say everyone should be an expert on something by the time they’re 50, and I’m an expert on sports media.” Bingo. He is an expert, and he has the knowledge, experience, and Web success to back that title. Same with Chad, who was referred to as “the guru of Boston sports media” in one of the Blackboard readings. As bona fide authorities on the subject, their opinions carry weight and backlash, like Ken’s block from following the Twitter accounts of Bill Simmons and Erin Andrews.
Anyone who’s taken Paul Flannery’s sports journalism class knows the importance of context in every section of every story. The business is a volatile one; as we know, the ways in which news is reported and stories broken have changed drastically in recent years. Consequently, the experience has changed for consumers. We don’t need everyone to weigh in on the process, but we do need the expertise of real media critics to put it into logical, coherent perspective. To provide context.
.
Jonathan Lemons posted on October 22, 2012 at 2:14 pm
If you’re interested in knowing what (someone says) is happening in, say, the local sports media scene, there is value in sports media criticism.
Of course, the value a particular critic provides ultimately lies in whether or not you respect their opinion and share similar tastes. An uninformed and inarticulate critic is not particularly worthwhile. Yet the function of criticism still has inherent value, regardless of whether the critiques do.
(In other words, when a cook prepares a disgusting dish and renders that particular food worthless, that doesn’t mean food in general is useless as well.) This is an admittedly obvious but nonetheless important point.
Professor Shorr’s statement that “It should be as simple as just changing the channel or, heaven forbid, turning off the program” suggests a) we should use our own opinions, not rely on other peoples, and b) that we’d know what to change the channel to. That’s where I see a media critic’s greatest value. They can help you figure out what channel to watch instead. You don’t rely on critics to tell you what you think about something. You look to critics make you aware of writers, programs, websites, shows, etc. that you may not have known about otherwise.
With the explosion of sports coverage online over the past decade, a media critic keeping tabs on all of the various news outlets and telling you what (he thinks) is good, bad, changing, etc. can be a wonderfully helpful resource.
Much like a (news, sports, politics) column, when done well they aim to have you walk away having learned something and hopefully thinking about something in a way you hadn’t previously. Sharing information and new ways of looking at your world seem like valuable endeavors to me.
Media criticism does offer another, perhaps more important function, though in my view, it’s not the one Ken Fang envisions. Fang’s point that media critics must be the one’s to hold people accountable when they make a mistake, particularly with something as tactical and innocent as a typo in a chyron, rang false to me. Professional integrity, fierce industry competition and, frankly, vanity, certainly seem like strong enough motivation to encourage people to do their jobs well. Mistakes happen. When they happen too often, the people making them find new jobs. Pointing out trivial mistakes serves no real purpose unless they speak to a larger trend of incompetence.
Chad Finn’s approach, to calling people out for disingenuous, dishonest and misleading work seems like a much more appropriate and productive role for media critics. (Not to mention, it makes for far more interesting reading than a story about an errant vowel.)
I also take issue with Shorr’s contention that as viewers our job is to distinguish between amateur critics or critics without access, “the prototypical bloggers in the basement” and guys like Jack Craig, who had/have access and a platform.
Distinguishing between the two is obviously rather straightforward, but I’m not clear why Shorr says it is our job to recognize that distinction. The suggestion, I think, is that ‘Twitter critics’ are inherently less credible. (“Bloggers in the basement” is rarely used as a term of validation.)
Regardless of why Shorr says it is our job to recognize the distinction, the implication is clear: these groups should be thought of and treated differently.
Yet, Shorr also seems to lament the difference in treatment experienced by freelancer Guy Adams and Grantland writer Bryan Curtis after each published similarly scathing reviews of the Olympics coverage.
If both parties made equally salient points, why is it on the viewers to recognize a distinction between the two? The viewer’s job, in my view, is to recognize quality work, regardless of the source.
Davis VanOpdorp posted on October 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm
To be completely honest, I didn’t know exactly what media critics did. I didn’t know if they ripped the bologna out of people in the media, or compared media members to each other and established who was the best.
But after reading a few articles on sports media watch (like this one http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/10/mlb-postseason-overnights-for-nlcs-game-6-up-from-last-year/), it is much more than critiquing people in the media. They are the ones that provide analysis on the numbers, as well as the quality of presentation, of media shows, whether a game or just a simple talk show.
Now a lot of the previous comments have referred to this: can’t anybody do this? Can’t I just watch a game and be able to tell whether the people on TV are good? Well…no, because I don’t have any credibility. I don’t have any experience in comparing someone on TV to some one else, so I can’t put people in context. I could rip somebody for their facts or their presentation, but how do I know if what I’m saying is correct?
People like Ken Fang and Chad Finn aren’t only experienced in sports media, but still contribute in sports media. What they say has some weight because they can put people into perspective, can see what styles works because they’ve seen styles that work. Most importantly, they can tell when someone is being authentic, like say Dan Patrick, or blowing smoke out of their but, like Skip Bayless.
Their experience gives their analysis weight. People are more likely to read what THEY have to say rather than random people on twitter. They give credit when credit is due, and rip when someone needs to be ripped. Like Chad Finn (and everyone else above) has mentioned before, they are checks and balances to the sports media industry, because since they are part of it, they want to make sure that the industry remains credible.
Now, Mr. Shorr said that this is a seminar that he doesn’t do every year, and I understand why that is, since media critics are kind of frowned upon in the sports industry (Bill Simmons blocking Kevin Fang speaks volumes to me). But at the same time, it’s important to know that I have to have every sports cast, every column, and every play-by-play appearance be preformed up to the highest standard. Why? Because sports media critics are making sure that I keep the credibility and integrity of the sports industry in tact.
Phillip Kisubika posted on October 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Like a lot of people, I wasn’t very aware of media criticism until fairly recently. My main entry into that world is the writing of Sports Illustrated’s Richard Deitsch. Deitsch functions as SI.com’s media critic, reporting and analyzing the choices made by media outlets, including the one that pays him. He also puts together some really interesting behind the scenes One of his most recent columns (http://tinyurl.com/9hzevdf) detailed the tough day Joe Buck had in which he called an NFL game and a baseball playoff game in the same day.
For me, the importance of having sports media critics is in the background they report on decisions that happen at media outlets. Why is one guy the main play-by-play guy at a network over a much better replacement? Who’s someone that does a great job at color commentary that you wouldn’t think? For people who want to think critically about the work that media professionals do, media critics offers a unique experience.
Another part of media criticism that we didn’t get into in the seminar is the role of ombudsmen. Some of the most prominent ombudsmen in the business are the ones who write about ESPN. The last two were the people of the Poynter Review (http://tinyurl.com/bqek34s) and former television executive Don Ohlmeyer. As the most scrutinized name in sports media, there’s a lot of stuff that an ESPN ombudsmen can write about, and they have the access that a lot of viewers wish they had. Even then, ombudsmen can be criticized (http://tinyurl.com/8cm27hh). Sometimes, it’s a critic-eat-critic world.
Greg Picker posted on October 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm
In today’s world in which the internet is such a prominent part of everyone’s daily life, it is of the upmost importance that everyone is completely accurate. A simple mistake such as a spelling error of a sports icon’s name or something statistically inaccurate can be seen by more than just those watching the game live. Thanks to the media critics like Fang’s Bites or Deadpsin, the media can be held even more accountable. Prior to the internet, a mistake would likely be seen only by those watching the telecast live. For a simple spelling error, many people most likely wouldn’t even realize a mistake was made. Those who would realize would likely forget about the mistake a short time later. With the internet, the mistake will live on forever
This is without a doubt a positive step in the field of sports journalism, and journalism in general. More accountability, means greater accuracy, which means better journalism.
In addition, by reporting potential moves that are being made by media personalities, the media critics can help the public judge whether the move was made because of money, a dispute, or for whatever reason. For example, Fang’s Bites recently reported that ESPN play-by-play voice Dan Shulman will stay with the network. http://fangsbites.com/2012/10/dan-shulman-re-signs-with-espn/ When a network has a press release, they are not going to state what the issues may have been leading to a re-signing or someone leaving the network. Also, Had I not read this, I would have had no idea that Shulman could have been involved with NBC regaining MLB coverage.
Finally, media critics can also serve as entertainment. Between Deadspin and Awful Announcing, there is a huge audience that has opinions on sports media figures and media critics are the medium in which these feelings are also portrayed. Awful Announcing has a weekly segment called the “Pammy Awards.” http://www.awfulannouncing.com/pammies/pammy-awards/vote-for-your-week-8-pammy-nominees.html Each week, readers can vote on their favorite misquote made by a commentator. With 15 to choose from each week, there are clearly plenty of gaffes made that these media critics can then use for entertainment’s sake.
Ashley Driscoll posted on October 22, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Early in this week’s seminar, Ken Fang mentioned that when businesses like ESPN and Comcast Sports Net started arguing back with what he wrote, he knew he was starting to make an impact. I’ve noticed this as a common theme that is starting to weave itself through our seminars (think back to Jerry Thornton from barstool sports who knew he struck a nerve when the comments came pouring in, or more recently when our sports talk radio guests discussed how they like getting their audiences fired up and involved in the conversation). Perhaps this is part of the competitive nature of sports…
Critiquing the media, however, is not necessarily about getting people fired up, rather a campaign to set the record straight and to justifiably call out journalists and news organizations for their mistakes.
While Fang’s statement early in the seminar gave me the impression that sports media critics are writing just to get reactions, I learned that this is not the case. Chad Finn emphasized how some people will write material just to get a reaction, but he tries to stay true to what he actually believes in. He said, “I won’t write something for the sake of writing it just to generate response.” Later in the conversation, both Fang and Finn reiterated the importance of being fair, and when you are fair in what you write, you are respected by those whom you critique (at least that’s the hope anyway).
As a consumer of media, I appreciate that there are people to provide this function for me. After all, not every consumer of media has the time or energy to find out if what they are reading is 100% accurate. I do feel, however, that media critics should be properly qualified to do so (read: blogger in basement does not count). Both of our guests this week are former sports writers and, in my opinion, prior work experience in this field gives these media critics the necessary credibility to do their job, and to do it well.
Ashley Driscoll posted on October 22, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Also, I read this interesting article from Bleacher Report…
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/864689-whats-wrong-with-sports-journalism-and-how-can-we-fix-it
My favorite was where the author reminds fellow reporters ask intelligent questions (Slide 4) and, basically, prove that they’ve done their homework before interviewing or going into a press conference. Journalists should self-regulate on this, and when they don’t, they should expect to be called out by a media critic.
Jashvina Shah posted on October 23, 2012 at 12:16 am
Professor Shorr asked if there’s any value in having a sports media column, and I don’t think there is.
Reading various posts on Boston Sports Media Watch reaffirms my initial belief about the lack of value sports media columns have. The Boston Sports Media Watch post on Ian Rapoport tweeting during Myra Kraft’s funeral demonstrates how media critics aren’t needed. In the post, Ryan Hadfield summarizes what Rapoport did and then stated what he thought and asked what the readers thought. To me, there’s nothing in there that’s important, valuable or particularly insightful.
Most people can, and will, form their own opinions on the issue. Hadfield acknowledges that by asking what his readers think at the end of the post.
The article on Boston Sports Media Watch right now is one on the Patriots and their recent victory (http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2012/10/patriots-suffer-worst-win-of-bradybelichick-era-sox-get-their-man), which has a little introduction and then posts to articles and commentary from other news sites. Again, there’s nothing insightful.
Then there are critics that Chad Finn and Ken Fang mentioned who just hate everyone and everything and only write media columns for entertainment.
A few of my classmates pointed out how media columns can be insightful and post informative stories. Davis posted an article from Sports Media Watch that shows a change in television ratings. There’s also Poynter, a renowned organization dedicated to media. Fang’s Bites also has different releases and news about the media that is informative.
But there’s a huge different between an organization like Poynter, which aims to teach a high, ethical level of journalism (http://about.poynter.org/about-us/mission-history), and sites like Boston Sports Media Watch, which just comment on random happenings. Even Fang’s Bites has bland, pointless posts such as a list what sport is on when and on what channel (http://fangsbites.com/2012/10/mondays-viewing-picks/).
Chad Finn mentioned that checks and balances are important. They are, but those checks and balances don’t need to come from media critics. They can come from colleagues in the industry, editors, producers and the like.
Sports media columns have more unimportant information than important information, making it seem like they aren’t needed. A lot of topics mentioned in sports media columns, like Fang’s Bite’s TV listings, can be found elsewhere with just a little research. Sports media columns aren’t contributing much.
Nate Weitzer posted on October 23, 2012 at 11:54 am
Good writing is such a difficult thing to quantify. We have Food Critics, Film Critics, Book Critics and all sorts of people who make a living off their ability to spin a verb while providing their expertise on a subject. But how do you you critique the media? It’s a tricky task, critiquing the critics, and our guests recognized that they have to be extremely diligent in their own reviews or face the wrath of their own critics (Jerry Thornton’s plankton= the website commentators).
There is a necessity for this type of journalism, and it is another example of how ‘Checks and Balances’ can help to insure that everyone is producing up to their potential in any field. The police insure that laws are followed, and Internal Affairs polices the police. Similarly, media critics are there to insure that reporters are following the spoken (and unspoken) laws of journalism.
The ‘studio gangsters’ on talk radio broadcasts and many newspaper writers should feel comfortable, knowing that they have job security and that they’ve “made it,” but they still need to be held accountable for their work ethic and for the product that they put out.
That’s where media critics come in. They commend or condemn the work of known professionals in order to connect with readers that may feel the same way. They provide a voice for the collective audience of these news outlets by attempting to consolidate the general sentiments and responses of these people into a cogent piece of writing.
Essentially the goal of every media critic should be to have at least some fans blurt out: I couldn’t have said it better myself! Because they’re not professional writers, and chances are, they really couldn’t.
It’s still important for media critics to be selective about who they evaluate. There are mindless automatons like Skip Bayless out there who aren’t truly expressing any creative thoughts or practicing journalism in a traditional sense. It should be a professional courtesy amongst real journalists. Not simply to criticize, but also to point out when a writer truly creates a masterful piece. Because otherwise the only gauge for success in sports journalism would be the amount of clicks and comments your articles receive, and heaven forbid we start judging reporters based on only that.
Mary Gagliardi posted on October 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm
What I took from the seminar that gave us an in-depth look at the role of media critics is that media critics are actually very important to keep the standard and quality of journalists work as high as possible.
I used to be very uncertain of the role of media critics and wondered if there would eventually be critics of the critics, then critics of those critics and so on and so forth. It seemed like a never-ending circuit. But, I was able to grasp more clearly after their seminar what the true goal of media critics is…But, be warned, not all of them have the best intentions. Some are out for blood and are interested in settling personal scores instead of giving their honest analysis.
Journalists hold an important role in society to report the truth and to report the story correctly. People all over the world depends on these journalists and trust what they say. Media critics hold people to a reasonable standard, so that if the journalists make an error, the error is noted and the public is made aware. It is only fair, as all journalists hold so much responsibility to be truthful to the public.
Without these media critics, how would the public know if one network was sloppy, or if one journalist didn’t fact check all their information. The population should be grateful for these media critics, because you are able to determine which journalists to follow and trust.
The only downfall I found to this career is who really has that much time to read media analysts? For me, finding the time to sit down and read the paper has been hard. So now I watch highlights and read online updates on my smart phone. While there are critics for those forms of journalism as well, I honestly have zero time to read that. Hopefully others do though, or take the time to, as it is important to keep this valuable outlet alive.
Nick Hansen posted on October 23, 2012 at 7:12 pm
I think these critics like Fang and Finn are increasingly important in the expanding media world. The sports media market is flooded with multiple platforms, networks, new channels. I like the idea of having someone keep track of what all is going on. I like that Fang points out when someone is doing a good job.
I wish Fang and Finn tackled the critique of writing a bit more. I think that is where we have a huge glut of terrible media coverage. The Bleacher Report, a site populated with content made by unpaid writers, is now a major player in the media market. Very few of their writers have had formal experience, yet they are on top of google searches.
Also, one of ESPN’s biggest names, Darren Rovell screwed up big a few times this past summer. http://deadspin.com/darren-rovell/
He didn’t receive any major repercussions from these incidents.
This internet based critiquing is too often left to the snarky (mainly Deadspin, which is fine in small doses) and the just plain mean, like Dan Shaughnessy watch. (http://danshaughnessy.blogspot.com/) I think a professional watchdog would better serve the public.
Fang and Finn provide a good and under-appreciated service. I just wish they would expand to more sports coverage.
Patrick Thomas posted on October 23, 2012 at 8:46 pm
As an aspiring journalist, I never gave much thought to media critics . But like anything, it can in effect sharpen the work of us all.
Personally I have never read nor had I planned on starting to read any media criticism before this seminar. In some way, shape or form I suppose though that any work done by on-air talent, albeit radio or TV, and by sportswriters will always have its naysayers.
http://blackboard.bu.edu/@@1B229074403B6F696C873D91EE1484F4/courses/1/12fallcomjo532_a1/content/_3396474_1/MichaelGeeonHandlingCriticism.pdf
Now, I think Ken Fang and Chad Finn are both exceptional at what they do. Although they bring up negatives about certain writers or people, like Ken said, “I also give praise when there is good work being done as well.” Specifically in regards to Chad, his background in journalism makes him more capable of being a great media critic.
But honestly, how necessary are media critics to the sports world? Why do I need someone to tell me about a game and what was missed by a commentator or reporter? If I know the sport or the people playing I can probably catch that myself. It doesn’t take a genius to always see where someone goofs up.
Sure, Ken and Chad’s work might entice some people who work in journalism to work harder but modern technology itself has turned us all into media critics. Just check out this article from Grantland on the Olympics. It bashes NBC’s coverage of the event, basically by referring to twitter posts.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8237067/media-criticism-twitter-olympics
Now, the real question to this past seminar is not whether media critics keep journalists aware that they are not above reproach. Sure, they do indeed serve as a genuine reminder to always stay on top of your game as a journalist. Obviously that is true since Ken Fang is blocked by Bill Simmons on twitter.
What I took away is that the role of media critics is extremely less significant than it once was. And that in itself, explains how much relevance sports media critics have in today’s world of fast-paced technology.
Also, when a reporter writes or gives a factual opinion on TV it is deemed either right or wrong. An article by the Sports Media Journal negates that statement by saying that media critics should not look at everything as either “black” or “white”. It examines the tragic end of the Red Sox 2011 season.
http://sportsmediajournal.com/2011/10/16/globe-and-other-media-critics-need-to-learn-that-there-is-a-gray-area/
Journalists are groomed and reminded through school and internships to practice strong journalistic integrity. Like Jashvina said, our peers and colleagues are the people we compare ourselves to. Media critics may help us be better journalists, but they are not the ones who make us do great work.
Great journalism comes from a desire and burning passion to be great. Not because it is solely a set criteria we are made to oblige by media critics.
http://www.sportstvjobs.com/videos/vi-tim-franklin-sports-journalism-good-to-great.html
Consistently doing great work in journalism is in the hands of those who actually PRACTICE journalism.
The issue is not if Chad Finn or Ken Fang are reliable. Chad and Ken both share a level of expertise that many people do not. But in my opinion, the role of media critics has been diminished by updated technology and the ever-changing landscape of social media.
Kaleigh Fratkin posted on October 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm
I agree with Professor Shorr’s post that sports media critics exist(s) in many forms primarily designed to provide opinion for public consumption.
As we saw in this week’s class, there are “gutless critics” who often “cross-the-line” in their criticism (particularly, with athletes). Thankfully, however, there are respectable critics like Ken Fang and Chad Finn.
Although I understand the role of sport’s media critics, I do not always think that what they say is even worthy of saying. I think that those critics who take “ruthless shots” at athletes or teams are usually looking to entertain so as to gain attention. For example, the following article regarding Lolo Jones clearly emphasizes the point that sports media critics can say unnecessary things meant to pointlessly attack athletes. Jones was attacked before competed in the Olympic finals. As professor Shorr pointed out, sport’s people can be thinned skinned. I agree, but, in this case, I think the media critic was simply looking to entertain.
http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/track/story/Lolo-Jones-Today-Show-tears-up-over-media-criticism-080812
In all, my opinion regarding sports media critics isn’t definitive. I do believe these critics have every right to voice their opinion, but I suggest they should be respectful in so doing. I am of the view that critics are entitled to voice their opinion and have every right to “call people out” when appropriate, but I don’t think people should be gutlessly targeted for unnecessary reasons, as in the Jones example.
Nate Boroyan posted on October 23, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I guess this past week was a perfect prelude to the debacle that happened this week at the conclusion of the Patriots game on Sunday. For those of you who haven’t heard, Jim Nantz, who I normally believe is one of the best is in the business, had one of the worst on air gaffs I have ever witnessed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHFJOxmSSO0
Honestly, I don’t feel that my statement is hyperbolic. Nantz, announced after a booth review that confirmed a Jets’ fumble allowing the Patriots to win that the New York Jets had one the game. Had he simply stated that the Jets had won, I would have dismissed it as a typical New York/New England mixup. Instead Nantz had a prepared soliloquy.
He had time to prepare and made statements like “this would be a stunner… biggest upset of the day.” This illustrates a complete lapse in concentration in the actual game at its most pivotal point. More importantly, it displays a complete “all about me moment.” He was not set on doing his job, he was set on entertaining.
I suppose Nantz mistake would be perfect material for Finn and Fang, but unfortunately, I am not sure how necessary their jobs are, especially with social media sites such as twitter and the dreaded comments section of every site.
Nowadays, if a prominent media outlet or personally makes a mistake, even minor, he or she is going to hear backlash. Therefore, both Finn and Fang’s criticisms are hardly unique and to an extent, old news.
What their jobs do provide however is what I view as a peer critique. I’m sure at some point, we have all been in a class where our classmates are asked to comment and workshop one of our pieces. For me, these situations have always been the most awkward.
Hardly, anyone is willing to provide criticism vocally because it is hard to critique someone else’s work, especially when that is the job of the professor. When someone is brave enough (never me) to make a comment that is constructive it does raise some eyebrows. It announces that others are indeed reading (watching) what you are doing and care about the way it is presented.
I believe both Finn and Fang provide this service. They are not random anonymous comments on a website, they are fellow journalists who’s job it is to provide a system of “checks and balances.” Whether or not others in the industry read what they write or care about what they say, Finn and Fang provide a face to the criticism they provide. They are not hiding. If anything, it makes media members aware that, while anonymous trollers may not effect what their jobs, media critics do. The fact that they are paid to provide their service shows that outlets do indeed value the integrity and quality of what is produced.
Even still, if media criticism did not have a place in the media, I am not sure if personalities or reporters would be producing blatantly poor work. As mentioned before, sites such as twitter provide this critique.
As mentioned in previous posts, Finn and Fang’s true value may be their ability to present the criticism in an educated an informative way.
Bobby LeBlanc posted on October 23, 2012 at 11:32 pm
To be honest, I have never really given media critics too much thought until last week’s seminar. Chad Finn and Ken Fang did a great job of informing us on what they actually do. It is the job of a media critic to keep journalists honest and hold them to a higher standard. As already mentioned in the comments above, there are critics in many other professions as well. I think it’s important to recognize as journalists that there are professional media critics like Chad and Ken working for a living. As they both said in the seminar, they do their best to be fair.
That being said, I think it is important to recognize that everyone can be a critic when it comes to the media. Chad and Ken both mentioned Twitter a lot in the seminar. The following article is an example of how people can come together on Twitter and play a major role in media criticism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/london-olympics-nbc-critics-social-media_n_1721337.html
NBC was heavily criticized during its coverage of the 2012 Summer Olympics.
“In the age of social media, NBC now has millions of television critics who make their opinions known about every aspect of Olympics coverage instantly,” writes David Bauder.
Thousands of people took to Twitter to criticize NBC. One media critic, Jeff Jarvis, believes that NBC can actually learn from this. Now of course NBC can justify its coverage by its millions of viewers, but I agree that it would be important to take note of the unhappiness of so many viewers criticizing the coverage on Twitter. I’m not saying that journalists should always listen to ridiculous tweets, but I think this case is different. It is important to take viewers’ opinions into account when it happens on such a large scale.
Chad even mentioned in the seminar that he interacts and responds to the people who comment on his stories. He finds it beneficial because the readers will stay loyal to you.
I think this next article is a good example of how we need to be careful on Twitter, especially if we are being critical of someone else.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics–critic-of-nbc-has-twitter-account-suspended-after-network-complains.html
Guy Adams is a writer for the Independent, and he took to Twitter to also criticize NBC’s coverage of the Olympics. Adams posted a tweet that included one of NBC’s top executive’s email address in his criticism. Although the email was arguably not a private one, Adams’ Twitter account was suspended. Even though I don’t think his account should have been suspended, I think he crossed the line in posting the email address for everyone to see. The story to me serves as an example for journalists and critics to be careful about what they post on Twitter and the information they display.
Again, there are professional media critics like Chad and Ken, but then there is everyone else. It’s not just Chad and Ken who keep journalists and the media honest. As in the case of the NBC Olympic coverage, it is clear that anyone can be a media critic. As an aspiring journalist, I feel it is important to take into account what the professional media critics have to say and pay attention to what the larger audience might be saying. It may not always be the case that we have to respond to them, but we should at least be aware of what is being said.
Matt DeFonzo posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:45 am
There are two distinct areas I’d like to cover in the following post on media critics. First, I agree with what I think Jon is trying to say in part of his blog post: media critics shouldn’t call out the outlets they cover for miniscule mistakes. The second thing I want to point out is I agree with media critics complimenting the media for their successes in addition to pointing out their shortcomings, as both Chad Finn and Ken Fang said they do.
During last week’s seminar, Fang said he didn’t acquiesce to TNT’s request that he take down a screen shot of an instance in which the network spelled Willie Mays’ last name “M-A-Y-E-S.”
Maybe he should have.
I don’t think a single misspelled name is cause for the concern of a media critic, in part because there could be far more egregious offenses going on in the world of journalism. At the same time TNT spelled the Say Hey Kid’s last name incorrectly, there could have been journalists doing things the wrong way: making up information, distorting the facts, plagiarizing. It isn’t, in my opinion, necessary to go after a television network for a mistake like spelling one name wrong when other people might be engaged in more atrocious violations of journalistic ethics and morality.
The second point I want to make about media criticism is that I think it’s a beneficial practice for Fang and Finn give praise to the people of the media in addition to identifying their mistakes. When media critics do nothing but print bad things about people and/or various forms of media, I think there’s a chance that people might actually start to believe that many things about the media are bad. I think it’s similar to the idea of “Mean World Syndrome,” which, according to the website meanworldsyndrome.com “is a phenomenon where the violence-related content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.” By printing negative stories, I think media critics might convince people that the media is worse in accuracy, morality, and ethicality than it actually is. However, by printing compliments of the media in addition to criticisms, media critics can advance the idea that some of the work done by journalists is well-done.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that there is a media critic that talks about the mistakes sports announcers make. A reader of said critic might come to believe that all such broadcasters are prone to blunders on a regular basis. While it is likely true that all television and radio personalities make mistakes at one time or another, it seems to be a relatively rare occurrence. If a sports fan continues to read our imaginary critic’s work, however, he or she might come to suspect sportscasters commit on-air inaccuracies on a more regular basis. However, if our imaginary media critic also notes the successes of sports commentators, then the sports fan who reads them will, in my opinion, be more likely to see these on-air personalities for what they probably are: members of the mass media who are generally ethical and accurate but sometimes make mistakes when disseminating information.
So to recap my thoughts: media critics shouldn’t spend too much time nitpicking at the relatively minor mistakes that sports journalists make because there are probably violations of journalistic ethic and morality that are more worthy of criticism. Media critics should also give praise to sports journalists in addition to criticisms because doing so will likely be a more accurate reflection of the way that sports journalists actually complete their work: mostly accurate and ethically sound, but occasionally with a few minor errors.
Andrew posted on October 24, 2012 at 4:10 am
As I mentioned in class I have read media critics, in particular sports media critics that are overly cynical and never have a nice thing to say about anyone. Enter Phil Mushnick and Bob Raissman stage right.
In a lot of ways for a very long time journalism was like an old boys club. And as the club members change in the journalism field as a whole so does the media critic club. Instead of the Mushnicks and Raissmans you have the Changs and Finns. Some say media personnel have become soft-skinned (and they’re right), but change is good.
Now is there a value to having such media critics…yea absolutely. As journalists, lets not forget that we are journalists, the cardinal rule taught in almost every entry-level journalism class is “journalists are the watchdogs”. Journalists are entrusted to give a voice to the voiceless and make sure that corruption on all levels is quelled. In the famous words of Uncle Ben from Spiderman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKmQW7JTb6s&feature=related
All kidding aside the “watchdogs” should have watchdogs. That’s not to say that sports journalists are always reporting on the hard-hitting stories, but there is always a place for constructive criticism. Quite frankly it is the mark of true journalist to accept this criticism. With so many bloggers and so many opinions on the Internet I look at it as a right of passage. To be criticized by Chad Finn, Ken Fang or even the Grantland crew means you’ve made it. In the sense that your opinion is respected enough that someone feels the need to call you out on your mistakes and missteps no matter how infrequent or small in nature.
At the same time these media critics must be careful…I mean in what other profession can people make a living criticizing fellow members in the same line of work? Which is why I will give these guys the benefit of the doubt, the amount of research and experience that must collect in order to come out with certain stories…if they are ever wrong or out of line with their criticisms it’s game over.
A tough line to tow indeed, a job that keeps on giving…the criticism that is.
Jason Lind posted on October 24, 2012 at 9:36 am
Early on in our seminar last Thursday, Ken Fang said that it seems like anyone can be a media critic these days. He and Chad Finn lauded Twitter as a great marketing tool and even a sort of daily sports newspaper for media critics. Twitter is certainly partially responsible for changes in media criticism, but the progenitor of the brash brand of sports media criticism we sometimes see on Twitter is Deadspin.
With Deadspin, Will Leitch brought the web’s evolution of sports media criticism to a wide audience. In September 2005, Leitch became founding editor of the Gawker Media sports blog that gained fame for repeated scrutiny of broadcast and print sports media, particularly ESPN. Now, Deadspin has an impressive readership (http://advertising.gawker.com/deadspin/ ← It’s a press kit, but still gives you an idea of the site’s popularity) and over 246,000 followers on Twitter.
Some of Deadspin’s popularity comes from it willingness to break (sometimes obscene) news that other media will not:
http://www.businessinsider.com/deadspin-scored-1-million-readers-on-monday-expect-advertising-boost-from-favre-2010-10
But the site additionally examines ESPN through a critical lens, which also brings in a lot of readers. Deadspin is often vulgar and occasionally tasteless (its tag line is “Sports news without access, favor or discretion”), which drags the website into controversy regularly. Sean Gregory wrote in Time Business about a particular instance when editor A.J. Daulerio abandoned the usual notions of journalism ethics and standards by releasing the “ESPN Horndog Dossier”:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1932286,00.html
Here, we see how Deadspin has negatively impacted media criticism. At its worst, Deadspin bloggers are “rumor mongerers” with no training in journalism and no journalistic integrity. Deadspin can bring a harsher, less nuanced and less researched approach to sports media criticism, constantly grinding its own axe. A lot of the writers come off as inexperienced blowhards.
Deadspin may be pushing sports media criticism into a new age, but not always at a bad angle. Patrick Burns does a weekly column for the blog called “Bristolmetrics.” Burns dissects a weeks worth of the 11 p.m. SportsCenter:
http://deadspin.com/5954167/bristolmetrics-espn-anoints-alex-rodriguez-as-historys-greatest-monster
The column breaks down SportsCenter minute-by-minute, uncovering its most-discussed athletes and sports. With “Bristolmetrics”, Deadspin brings a fresh approach to media criticism, lighter on baseless vulgarity and heavier on reason and research. From the same media outlet, we have outstanding and horrendous examples of sports media criticism.
Deadspin demonstrates the schizophrenia of sports media criticism on the Internet. We often see two conflicting approaches on the same blog. But the criticism, if it’s fair and upheld to a higher journalistic standard, will always be necessary. Outside of the law, there always needs to be someone to keep the “Fourth Estate” in check.
Greg Huntoon posted on October 24, 2012 at 10:55 am
Like most of the class, I had little knowledge of sports media critics going into last Thursday’s lecture. But after listening to Ken Fang and Chuck Finn, I think there is a definite place for media critics in sports today.
In his comment earlier, Matt questioned the need for critics to criticize every little error that might appear. I think it is a good thing that these errors are being pointed out. As many of you have mentioned before, this helps to put in a checks and balances system, and to keep all those in the media on their toes. Knowing that your work is going to be dissected and critiqued down to the last detail should make you do more to make sure what you’re writing or saying is accurate.
The job of sports media is to give information, and that information has to be correct. Maybe a little spelling error or saying that the Jets won isn’t a huge deal, but it should be pointed out. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the incorrect spelling of Mays is ok, then what would be the case if Mississippi was put instead of Mississippi State? I think media critics should point out all mistakes, and let their readers determine what they want to view as a bad mistake or not.
I also like the roles that Fang and Finn have as media critics. Chad Finn only writes his sports media column once a week for the Globe. He is not pointing out every little thing that is right or wrong, just the big things that Boston fans might want to know. Similarly, Ken Fang does not put all of his focus into criticizing sports media. While Fang’s Bites does have that, it also has a lot of press releases concerning programming, which I find very helpful. I like to know who is calling the Michigan game this weekend, if Manchester City is on TV today and any and all information I can get about the World Series coverage (Go Tigers). And to those who say that they do not care who is calling a game, wouldn’t you want to know if Skip Bayless is working it?
Sandeep Chandrasekhar posted on October 24, 2012 at 5:36 pm
With the rapid expansion in sports media outlets, there is certainly a greater need for sports media critics today. Professional critics will help educate sports fans on the premier news outlets in media, in television, radio, and the Internet.
Sports critics have a much larger role than they did a few years ago. With the expansion of social media, anyone can freely express their opinions on sports broadcasters. For instance, Joe Buck and Tim McCarver made multiple mistakes in their broadcast of the NLCS Games 1 and 2. They mispronounced names, openly rooted for St. Louis despite broadcasting to a national audience, and did not stir interest with their lifeless commentary. According to Sports Business Analyst Darren Rovell, there were over 1000 tweets in a span of 20 minutes during the game criticizing their commentary. This suggests that more people are becoming interested in critiquing sports media. In previous years, I had never given any thought to sports media critics, but Ken Fang gave me a newfound perspective on this industry.
Journalists of all types need to be held to a higher standard with the expansion of global media. Some people on this discussion board have mentioned that media critics are unqualified and unjustifiably criticize sports media personalities. To an extent, they are completely right. People certainly overreact to any errors made on-air by analysts or broadcasters and let their opinions be known on Twitter.
However, I believe people who actually conduct extensive research, like both men who spoke at the seminar, have very credible opinions on the industry. They spend countless hours researching sports media, and can now decipher the difference between good and bad work. Sports critics will ultimately help the entire sports media industry because they will hold the journalists to a much higher standard. Journalists will become more fearful in making mistakes, which will give them greater incentive to prepare harder. More often than not, great broadcasts are very entertaining and the more prepared the broadcasters are, the better the telecast.
Ultimately, as long as sports media critics can put in honest, thorough, and detailed research in sports media, they can become very influential members in this industry. Sports media critics need to be careful in their word usage to maintain professionalism and establish credibility. Sports media has continued to expand, and sports fans need to know which are the best places to obtain information.
Tim Larew posted on October 24, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I was never really too familiar with the position of a sports media critic. Though I wasn’t able to attend last week’s lecture, I did a little bit of research into the speakers and the other names mentioned above, as well as the career field as a whole, and the conclusion I’ve drawn is that in a way, we’re all sports media critics in today’s world.
The best example I can think of from the past year is when an inappropriate headline about Jeremy Lin led to the firing of an ESPN employee. Even as recent as five years ago, it would’ve taken much longer for that headline to spread throughout the internet and be criticized by the general public. But with Twitter being so heavily involved with everything and such a catalyst for both good and bad news, that situation was blown out of the water by modern day sports media critics.
The professional position is important simply because of the idea of checks and balances. For any system to be effective, there has to be someone looking over a journalist’s shoulder to make sure what they’re publishing is up to par.
Whether via Twitter or columns, which are obviously becoming outdated, sports media criticism is an integral part of the industry.
Stephanie Jarvis posted on October 24, 2012 at 10:03 pm
To be completely honest, my opinion on media criticism and it’s impact on the journalism world is still quite torn. A part of me agrees with some of my classmates in the thought that the “media watchdog” is a necessary foundation of checks and balances for the journalism society. It’s important to be held accountable if a mistake is made. If an accountant misses a zero on a form, he or she could be fired. But what about the producer who fails to correct a spelling error on a chyron? Where is the line drawn for journalists?
Because the work of a journalist can be broadcast or read by millions of people, it’s become fair game for criticism. I find myself on the line a bit, because I know how easy it is to pronounce a name wrong or make other simple mistakes. After all, we’re human and mistakes are part of human nature. I would personally find more use for media critics who turn the spotlight on stories with questionable contexts, biases or lack of research. I’ve never been a fan of completely ripping someone for an error, but I am a proponent of the media critic who holds journalists accountable in a fair manner. I may be in the minority here, but I am also in support of media critics who highlight the good in journalism.
With all that being said, it’s important to develop a thick skin as we enter into our journalism careers. I think respect in this industry is earned and not guaranteed, so we can only learn from our mistakes and do our best to progressively improve and avoid making the same mistake twice.
Caitlin Donohue posted on October 24, 2012 at 11:07 pm
No matter who you are or what job you have, most people agree that you should take responsibility for your own actions. That’s why I found it interesting that in this week’s seminar, our guests’ profession involved forcing this responsibility upon others. Sometimes I think this is called for, but many times, I do not. While I think that incorrect coverage of a sports teams’ management should be rectified, I feel like it is not always necessary to rectify the one-time misspelling of Willie Mays’ name (did I even get it right?).
But ultimately, my opinion doesn’t matter. Free speech is free speech, so anyone has a right to say what they want about pretty much anything. I was shocked to read this article that Bobby posted about a young man’s Twitter account being suspended after he insulted NBC in a Tweet.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics–critic-of-nbc-has-twitter-account-suspended-after-network-complains.html
Adams, the man whose account was suspended, stated that “NBC was trying (and in this case, succeeding) in shutting down the Twitter accounts of journalists who were critical of their Olympic coverage.” I think this brings a very good point to our attention that the RESPONSE to the criticism is just as vital to acknowledge as the criticism itself. NBC did not handle its criticism in a professional manner, so the network ended up looking even worse in the end than if they had taken the criticism silently.
Overall, this seminar made me realize that I could not do what they do. While Finn and Fang are undoubtedly qualified individuals, I would honestly feel like a bully if I constantly searched or waited for somebody to make a mistake. Despite my personal aversion to this criticism, though, I think that media critics still serve a vital purpose in society: to expose wrongdoings. As Jonathan said, “mistakes” do not need to be highlighted, while “dishonest, misleading work” should be acknowledged and denounced. I will leave you with this article about Jim Lehrer fighting back after poor reviews of his moderation of the 2012 Presidential Debates. Even his long-time friends and experienced peers criticized his performance. Was their criticism fair? Or was Lehrer justified in his defense of his work?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/jim-lehrer-debate-critics_n_1950644.html