Cranney Week 5

The discussion of the writer who broke the story about McGwire's PED during the 1998 home run chase got me thinking again about the uniqueness of covering sports as opposed to other sections in the paper.
With sports writing, there is a relationship between the writer and the communications department, the communications department with the team and the writer with the team. This three-way relationship can be straining or rewarding, but always requires a lot of work. It can allow writers to form personal bonds with their subjects, which can lead to those writers breaking stories if their sources feel a connection with them. At the same time, it can be challenging when a writer has to write a negative story on the team, sometimes on a person who the writer has developed a close bond with. Then, after writing the piece, the writer has to continue talking to the team everyday. It's a fragile business, and I can relate to it personally.
The overall theme of the first article of sports as the toy department is something I can relate to as well. From my experience with The Temple News, sports is the section that people working at the paper care least about. It's not as serious as the other sections, they say. It's not real news. But sports reporting is just as important as any other kind of reporting, and I pride myself on being a good reporter. Last year, as a part of the paper's annual awards nominations, it was between myself and the assistant news editor at the time for the award of "Reporter of the Year." I lost the nomination to him.

I really enjoyed Kevin Blackistone's article. I've been an admirer of his journalism for some time, and his academic writing is just as good. The article got me thinking about the racial constructs of sports, not just in participation, but in coverage and audience, something I haven't really done before. Obviously the NFL and NBA are dominated by black athletes, but the article points out that those sports' audiences are become increasingly black, while the percentage of black journalists covering the sports is decreasing.
It surprised me to learn that the number of black journalists has been decreasing during the past few seasons, and I'm not sure I understand why. I would think that overall, newspapers have been making cuts, so black journalists are losing jobs just like everybody else. But I am surprised that the numbers have been consistently decreasing.
Overall, the article makes me think that sports are played mostly by people of color, watched mostly by people of color, but the luxury of interpreting the sports is reserved for privileged whites.

     You've been horned! Welcome to Around the Horn with your host Anthony Joseph Temple Owl Reali. The article I read was the one written by the Horn's own Kevin Blackistone. In it, he talks about the racial profiling that exists in sports, and in journalism. The presence, or lack there of in the news room, is not only overwhelming, but a major concern. Minorities make up the largest number of athletes, while they are not represented in the news room in such way. While I could talk a bit about the concern that he states, something else about the article greater struck my intention.

     When it comes to race, profiling is a major concern. Black athletes seem to bear the larger brunt of new stories and are constantly being judged against their actions; this judgement also renders them being labelled in many different ways. The biggest label I can say that has existed, that I feel is vastly overlooked, is David Stern's implementation of the dress code.

     At the time, this was a big deal, but was quickly wiped away from news outlets. Locker rooms and team buses were filled with suit jackets, sweaters, and ties. No longer would you see the Allen Iverson du-rag at his post game interview. That is one of the lasting images I will have after his infamous "Practice" post game press conference. The image that Stern wanted to take away was the thuggish look many of his players had, or were assumed to have. This was not an appropriate look for the players in his league. This is not the image that he wanted for his league. His players would dress well, in order to make them seem classier, and not like they were up to no good. 

    For some athletes, their off the field/court image is as important as their on the field/court. Stern took the hood out of the NBA by forcing his players to dress like they were there for business.

Toy Departments are the Best

People really hate on sports journalism sometimes. Derogatory names like the Toy Department are often given out by other journalists who are probably upset that they have to cover murders every day of their boring lives. These people couldn't cut it in the sports world, and I have no doubt they hate on us sports people for that.

Any whom, I found this article to be very enlightening, and a little long. Whiteside, Yu, and Hardin do a good job in their research to show that journalistic integrity exists in sports journalism. It also shows that things have come a long way since 1998. Ever since Barry Bonds was implicated, the media has shifted from trying to protect players, to trying to oust players.

A good example would be Melky Cabrera this year in San Francisco. He tested positive for a banned substance, and immediately was punished. I think one of the reasons things have changed so much is that the rules of sports have changed too.

Steroids weren't a serious offense in 1998. MLB handed out a memo that said steroids were against the rules, but did absolutely nothing to punish offenders and didn't really test people either. It was okay in 1998, which was shown by the writers' willingness to turn a blind eye. Now that it's illegal, writers are hell bent on ousting the abusers.

I don't think you can judge a whole section of journalism based on whether or not the articles people are writing are "neutral" or as I like to say: Swiss (Roger Federer's Nationality!). In fact, I believe writers have gone a little overboard on their writing just to be shock jocks. The crazier something you say is, the more people will listen. You hear me Rush Limbaugh.

Still, the stigmatism of the toy department will stick with sports writers for ever, and to be honest, that's okay. The toy department is the best department in every store ever. That's why F.A.O. Schwartz and Toys 'R Us exist. I like to embrace the toy department because people need us. People live off of analysis of their teams. Believe me, I certainly do.

Iatesta post

            A major theme of our discussions has been about how the sports department is seen as the toy department. This article takes a different approach on that idea than I had previously when talking about it in class.

            Whenever we talked about it in class I always took it as being the toy department because “real” journalists don’t see sports being an important topic. This article contends that it is the sports department because sports writers don’t write tough stories and aren’t critical. Basically saying they don’t cover the important issues in sports but just the easy stuff, the superficial aspect. I now see this idea from both angles and also think one could cause the other. It could be that newsrooms see the sports department as the toy department because they don’t report on the difficult issues.

            I think the steroid example used is a good one. I find it hard to believe journalists across the country didn’t know there was steroid use but it was never reported. When the information finally came out all we saw was steroids on TV and in the papers and tons of criticism of the players who took the steroids. However, I don’t recall seeing much criticism of the owners, commissioner, or the players union who also ignored the issue and allowed this to happen to make greater profits. To me this is where the article’s point comes into play; journalists don’t want to risk access or sources so it is easier for them to criticize Barry Bonds or Alex Rodriguez than Bud Selig or all thirty owners. It is safer for them to criticize the players. The players can’t keep the writers out of the clubhouse but the owners sure can. However, if you look to the Penn State case, the news networks had no problem going after Joe Paterno and the university itself. To me that shows more guts to take on an institution like that.

            I see the reasoning for calling the sports department the toy department but think that it is getting better for the sports department. I think in order to compete with blogs who might have lesser ethics when it comes to what they post, traditional media has to do something to compete and taking a hardnosed approach is that method.

Anthony Bellino: Toy Department Blog

            While the sports department of the newsroom has often been referred to as the toy department, it is a far stretch from the job it used to be. I feel that this article all but sums up exactly what we have been talking about in class the past few weeks. The Mark McGwire story was one that made the summer of 1998 glamorous as him and Sammy Sosa chased arguably the most coveted single season record in sports. Then Steve Wilstein broke the story about McGwire using performance enhancing drugs. Wilstein took a lot of heat for this article that kind of put a black mark over that magical summer, and I doubt it was like a toy department for him.

            That kind of began the evolution from toy department to what I believe is only kind of a toy department. No longer do we see journalists like the ones we read about in the Babe Ruth article, a man or woman would be run out of the business if they had a relationship like that and continuously wrote so positively about a figure. The evolution isn’t all bad though, look at the plethora of feel good stories you see run on various networks in the past year whether it be Oscar Pistorius the double amputee that ran in the Olympics or something like the Washington hosting baseball playoffs for the first time since 1933. Everyone just gets so caught up in the Penn State stories because the media blows them out of proportion. I would rather see the story about the kid who de-committed from Penn State and enrolled at Rutgers that was run on E: 60, it is much more of a human interest piece to me.

            All in all this article shed light on tough situations to deal with in journalism such as cheating scandals, race issues and cheating. This leads me to believe that the “toy department” is now evolving to a mature area that still is allowed to have fun from time to time.

Cranney post

I really liked the opening of the Kindred article. I know from my own Twitter feed, where I follow multiple Phillies writers, that every game day, a few hours before the game, there will be four to five tweets that come in at once from different writers announcing the day's lineup. It's a minor, but necessary part of the job, and thus is the life of a beat writer.

I remember from my own experience covering the Phillies for the Philadelphia Baseball Review that on any day I was responsible for covering the game, I would have to regurgitate the information reported by these multiple reporters, only adding to the multiplicity of Phillies' news. 

 

I can also relate to the second part of the Kindred article where the writer talks about writing nonstop on game day. When covering Temple football, I work nonstop from noon to 10 p.m. I live tweet the games, gather information, collect interviews and write stories. It's a non-stop grind, but I love it. 

I think one of the most interesting parts of sports journalism today is the fragmented reporting mentioned in article two. With an ongoing story, little bits of news break everyday on Twittee until the saga is over. I can relate this to a personal experience of mine when I was covering Temple's move to the Big East. 

 

I reported first that a meeting of Temple's athletics committee had been canceled and that once Temple got into the Big East, the conference would be covering the school's exit fees from the MAC and A-10. Two relatively small pieces of information in the grand scheme of things, but breaking those stories is one of the proudest moments of my sports journalism career so far. My tweets were retweeted and linked to by CBS Sports. I was able to contribute to the breaking news cycle because it was so fragmented.

Getting Beat to the Beat

I'll let you all in on a little secret, I have no idea who Red Smith is, or why anyone would name their kid Red. I don't think it makes me a bad journalist, or less of a person. Would I be less of a 'true' comedy fan if I'd never heard of George Carlin? Negative, Ghost Rider.

In the first article I read, by Dave Kindred, I found myself agreeing to some extent. It is a hectic life journalists live. Working for the Athletic Communications office this year has shown me the underbelly, if you will, of sports journalism. I have to show up four hours early to Temple's football games, and usually end up leaving 2-3 hours after it finishes. It's a full time job. I don't do much during the games, but I see all of the sportswriters writing and rewriting their stories in between tweeting about the game. 

As the games have changed, so has journalism. Like I've said early in the class, people don't want huge in-depth stories like they used to. Maybe a select few do, but journalism, and especially sports journalism, is a business. Give the viewer what they want. They want live tweets and lineups posted the second they come out. In this instant gratification day-and-age, we don't crave long stories, we crave instant info. 

In the second article, by Malcolm Moran, he talks about how all of these jobs that sportswriters have to is diluting the real reporting. I agree, for the most part. I do enjoy reading something other than recaps and previews, but I want it now. Now or never. It may take a few days to verify a source, or write up a poetic, beautiful story, but even if I read it right now, it wasn't quick enough. Someone else probably has the story. 

What bothers me about going into the field of journalism is this constant pissing contest to see who got what first and who tweeted what, when. WHO CARES? As long as the information is accurate (which it often isn't), why does it really matter who got it out? If 12 guys (or girls) are getting the exact same information, like the lineups, then it really comes down to who can type quicker on their cellphones, and that worries me a bit.

Beat Reporter John

     In regards to the article about the beat reporters I’d agree with the tone of the article that a baseball beat doesn’t seem to be the most enjoyable. I’d also say that due to the now now now demands of consumers the best work isn’t necessarily being put out there because they can’t afford to take their time. However it annoyed me how Kindred kept making the point that they have to write a lot during a game and it becomes a grind. Well that is exactly what a baseball season is, a grind. Also, it is the reporters’ job to write. I realize it might not be the most enjoyable day of work having to write constantly but honestly writing all day about a baseball game is not the worst job I could think of. As we’ve said in class journalism is constantly changing and the demands have changed and the writers must adapt to this.

      Moran I don’t really agree with at all. To me he is just basically saying “back in my day we did it this way”, well it’s not your day anymore and things change. That’s not to say there isn’t value in the way things used to be done and that there aren’t things that can be learned but things will not be done under the old model anymore. What needs to be done is to teach his students the principles of the old way and not the old way itself. Also, like Anthony I was offended by his comment saying that people of our generation have no idea of Kirk Gibson or Duke beating Kentucky. That is completely and utterly false. Being a sports fan myself I’ve always asked questions and been interested in the history of my favorite sports. Just because I wasn’t alive when he played, I know exactly the type of ballplayer Dick Allen was. He was my father’s favorite player and always told me stories of Allen, his favorite being when he hit a homerun over the flag pole in center field of Connie Mack Stadium. Being young doesn’t make us ignorant to sports history.

      We've said it over and over again, the way things are done in journalism and sports journalism are not the same as just ten years ago and reporters must adapt to the new methods while keeping their integrity as reporters. 

       The Molan talks a great deal about the teaching of journalism. Is the appropriate way to teach students the craft, the new way or the old way? He seems to argue that there is a time and a place for both of these to exist. While it is important for students to understand how to appropriately use these new technologies, it is almost important to understand the risks that come with using said medias. However, keeping them from learning the new way, will keep them from learning how the field actually works, which will thwart their learning process.

            This is an interesting debate in any field. I am a DJ and am currently going through the same struggling. When teaching the younger ones how to DJ I struggle with the approach. Because DJing has become such a technology-advanced skill, it is not easy to start back at square one. It seems as though teaching them the old way will keep them too far behind the learning curb. However, not enough can be said about the importance of learning the old school way and why that is important. That is training that you can no longer get in the field; therefore it is imperative to at least have some direction from the old school.

            Just as journalists get caught up in getting the news out first, the clarity and validity of the information is also lost. It is not easy to be first and flawless when it comes to the news. The art of journalism has shifted, and the new school is here to stay. Students cannot be left for dry when it comes for basic journalism, but they do need to have the principles instilled in their minds, but the new school practice in experience. 

Anthony Bellino Blog on Beat Writing

There were a few statements in this week’s readings that I agreed and disagreed with. I agree as I have from the first day of class that journalism is absolutely an evolving profession. Unlike the popular statement I believe that the game has changed, but some of the players are still the same, not all. Journalists that have been working beats since before I was born in 1992 were forced to adapt to a new atmosphere surrounding reporting news. Now, they must be constantly tweeting and updating followers on what is going on with the team. If they are late to post the lineup or release breaking news than yes they will get flack from their higher ups or even followers. Journalists who are new to the industry have been using twitter and other social networking sites for most of their careers. When it comes to the beat you have to be the first to release the news to beat out your competition.

Thinking as a sports fan and journalist alike there was one statement in the Moran article that I completely disagreed with though. Moran says, “To them (freshman in fall of 2010) Bob Knight and Lou Holts are not coaches as much as talking heads.” To me this statement is completely false, while I may not have been alive when Lou Holtz brought led the Fighting Irish on the field each Saturday or when Bobby Knight was firing chairs across the court at Indiana, I realize what they did as professionals. This is why I respect some, not all of their opinions as commentators of their respective sports. These men were coaches first and analysts second, to call them talking heads from a person of my ages viewpoint is completely disrespectful to the things these men did for their teams.

These articles though really shed light on what it is like to be a beat writer for a media driven team such as the New York Yankees, and let me say that it is much different than my post of beat writer for the Temple golf team. Today it is more of a competition to see who releases what news first, not who is writing the best articles.

Week 3 post

I didn't like the way the Salwen piece was structured and written, nor did I find the content to be particularly persuasive or original. He throws a laundry list of studies and ideas at founded by other men at the reader without offering any compelling arguments of his own. He doesn't use these studies to make any general point, at least one that is obvious.

I can relate to some of the studies that he references though, particularly the one that states that newspaper editors don't take the sports section seriously. In my job as Asst. Sports Editor of The Temple News last year and Sports Editor this year, I often think that the work in my section, which I think produces the most consistently good content out of any in the paper, goes under appreciated by the higher ups at the paper. Whether it's because the editors aren't particularly interested in sports, or because of the old phrase that Sports is the toy section of the newspaper, which Salwen mentions, I'm not sure. But I certainly agree with the notion that the sports section isn't taken as seriously as it should be.

The Hancherick article, in its discussion about the related history between sports and sports journalism, got me thinking about my own views on sports and writing about sports. I've known I wanted to be a sports journalist since I was in middle school. At first, I wanted to do it because I wanted to get paid to talk about sports. I entered the profession as a sports fan. But now, after having more than two years experience as a sports writer, I've come to fall in love with sports journalism itself. I don't consider myself the zealous sports fan that I was two years ago, but rather pride myself on a level-headed, unbiased, fair analysis of sports that comes with the job of a sports journalist.

I think one of the things that makes sports journalism stand out is the niche audience that the section has. Sports fans are going to read the sports section everyday because they follow their teams by definition. That doesn't come with other sections of the paper.

Ean Dunn Reading 2, The 'Buncha Hacks' Edition

Salwen and Garrison are exactly right. In their article, Finding Their Place In Journalism: Newspaper Journalists' Professional "Problem," they try to help sports journalists help themselves. I can attest to the concerns over “hacks” and professionalism. I’m sure I would be considered a hack by these older guys simply because I am writing for a sports blog.

Since it was published in the dark ages of 1998, I’ll cut these guys (the ones taking the survey) some slack. They couldn’t have known the true breadth of the Internet and how far it could reach. It seems to me, and is shown by their short answer responses that they are worried for Journalism in general, and especially sports journalism. I’m worried about it as well, and this is nearly 15 years later.

The use of both open and closed ended questions really helps this article’s strength, as the numbers do not lie. Journalism is changing, and it is my hope that writers are changing with it.

 The other article, Tweet Talking: How Modern Technology and Social Media Are Changing Sports Communication, is also a good read. I found myself nodding my head in the affirmative manner.

The way people receive news has changed dramatically. Bill Simmons’ tweet, while accidental, proved a very interesting point: the introduction of social media has increased people’s desire to get news, whether it be sports related or the weather, immediately. People didn’t care about ESPN’s ethics, and they certainly didn’t know/care that Simmons was just trying to confirm a source.

It amazes me that these guys even have sources to begin with. Simmons, Buster Olney, and recently Adam Schefter, seem to have an unwavering amount of sources and always have the inside scoop.

The main concern from the first article was professionalism, while the main problem in the second article is getting news out ASAP. It’s tough to tightrope walk the hazy line that is sports journalistic ethics. In this day and age, anything goes. If I hear that Cole Hamels is going to be traded at some point today, I have a huge dilemma on my hands. Do I write up a 2,000-word story, which will be published around the same time the deal happens, or do I write Hamels Yankees and post it immediately to my 3,000,000 followers? It will be interesting to see where twitter and social media take Sports Journalism.

John Iatesta post two

            I find it really interesting that the biggest concern amongst journalists professionalism. I think new media has led to a decrease in professionalism. Although the Internet and television have created a much bigger market for sports journalism, it has also led to sensationalized stories and personalities that are no longer objective in their opinions. ESPN over the years has produced great stories and has broken major news but recently they have become more of an entertainment business than a news organization. I realize sports are entertainment and so is sports media, but ESPN should be a sports news network first and entertainment second. A show like First Take is not only an insult to peoples’ intelligence; it is an insult to journalism. That show is possibly the most unprofessional show I have ever seen. I find it ironic how in the second article it talks about how ESPN employs top reporters, which they do, but then they put something like that on the air just to garner ratings and create controversy rather than trying to educated viewers. I don’t mean to pick on ESPN either for all their faults there are equal amounts of positives, but they are the largest sports network so using them as an example is the most obvious.

            In reference to twitter killing journalism as we know it, I disagree. Like we’ve mentioned in class writers post links to their stories on twitter. Along with that it gives people a way to directly communicate with the writers to answer questions and create a relationship between reading and writer. I know I find myself reading articles written by certain writers based off of their twitter feeds. I also actively look for story links from these writers. So I don’t see how it will kill journalism as we know it, I see it as a way to make the current system modern and more interactive for today’s audience. 

Anthony Bellino Blog Number 2

A question that was posed in the blog was what caused the evolution from the 1920’s through the present day in sports journalism; I took a second and thought about my own answer to this given question. The simplest thing I could think of was that it would be plain stupid to not utilize the given technology that we have today. The article by Hancherick states that Bill Simmons reaches over a million followers each and every time he tweets. This means he can break a story to a massive audience be it in 140 characters or less, before he writes an actual article. The one problem that twitter poses when it comes to journalism is who is credible and who isn’t. I can go on twitter right now and tweet that the Eagles have traded Michael Vick to the Patriots for Tom Brady, is that by any means credible? No, but if say Adam Schefter tweets the same thing people may actually look into it.

 

The article by Salwen and Garrison shows a table listing the possible problems involving journalism and more importantly sports journalism. The number one listed problem is professionalism. It seems every so often you see a big plagiarism story come out in journalism that affects the credibility of a given writer.  The part that really struck me in this article was the quote from Dwight Kier where he gave a one word answer to the main problem facing journalism when he simply said, “credibility.” Kier talks about how sports journalists aren’t very polished in grammar or name spelling, and must improve.

 

Everyone loves to talk about the problems facing journalism and the constant changing in the methods practiced by journalists. The truth is that I don’t see much changing in terms of journalism for at least a few years, the papers will stick around even though people love saying they’re “dying.” Social media will continue to take over as the place to break news even though it isn’t in a full story. These articles helped just further open my eyes to problems that we’ve spent two weeks talking about in class, these were focused mainly on sports and technology though.

     If professionalism is the biggest concern that sports journalists have, then Twitter has not made the problem any easier. If getting their first is everything, then Twitter provides the outlet in which to achieve this speed. The first article brings up the concerns that some journalists have within their own field. Amongst them, were concerns of writing skill and ethics, aside from the previous mentioned professionalism.

     There is something about getting there first that means everything to a journalist. Being that guy or girl that has the source that will only talk to them and break a major trade or signing is something that is very protected by journalists; almost every journalist keeps their sources to themselves. The speed at which they produce the information often supersedes the importance of respectable journalism. The quality of their work at times can be in question, if the timeliness of the article or news piece is more important than the content itself. It is this shift that has caused the great debate within journalism and technology.

     An important advancement in technology is Sportscenter, which is now broadcasted live. If there is breaking news, they can cover it as soon as they have it confirmed by their sources. They have made a great attempt at competing with the services of the internet. In my opinion, this speaks volumes to the adaptation that media and journalism has undergone.

    I find myself in complete agreement with the second article, and much of it runs parallel with the first article. As it is, sports journalism is taken much more seriously by its workers than by its counterparts. When you have Twitter and different media sites threatening the validity of your craft, then you are set up for trouble. Without more care for the craft of journalism, it will continue to disintegrate, until it is left to be defined by 140 characters. 

John Iatesta

     The Carey article described the shift in journalism that has taken place and how this has led to a decline in the quality of journalism. The Ford article discusses how changing times and technology have made the newspaper industry more or less obsolete but does not offer a true replacement for the newspaper.


      I find it interesting that there has been similar rhetoric for decades. The Carey article talks about television news and the need for breaking news leading to the decline of print journalism and today people use the same argument about the Internet. The advent of social media and the Internet in general has created a need for instant news and for it to be as concise as possible. People can’t be burdened to read lengthy articles that take up multiple columns in a newspaper. You could see this change around the time the Carey piece was written with the creation of USA Today only four years earlier.

      To Ford’s point about how the Internet is not a reputable source of information I find that to be quite short sided. There are sites that can be like the National Enquirer, but people can tell these sites apart from a legitimate news site. Major newspapers are online and available to read even though some do require you buy a subscription. Online newspapers are so much more interactive; they have video, full color, and search bars to find exactly what you want. It creates a more appealing form of news to this current age. Change is inevitable and there is no reason to not welcome the change.


      I understand the complaints of modern journalism and I agree to an extent but a journalist’s job is to deliver the news and they are doing this. It may not be as beautiful and articulate as previous generations but that no longer demanded. Change can be scary for some but whether or not it scares you must adapt because it will happen no matter what.

Ean Dunn Reading 1

While reading the first article I thought to myself, “Where is Journalism going?” I couldn’t definitively say, as I do not know the answer. The idea that someone can predict the next big thing, or even how many points to give a team for fair betting odds bewilders me. I find it easier to look in the past.

When thinking about how journalism has changed as an industry, I thought about the idea of having to read these two articles for this blog post. It hit me: Journalism has changed. Yes, there were days where people would read pages upon pages of good writing in the newspaper or in a magazine, as James Caray points out with his analogy of the Wall Street Journal and how they give the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ when other newspapers just give the other four W’s. People don’t want to read long stories anymore. My mother bought me a book of the best sportswriting from 2011 for Christmas, and I couldn’t even get to the third story.

Long stories have become inconsequential to the average reader. This is where, in my view, the lede becomes extremely important. Whether the lede is in the title or in the first sentence, it draws the reader in. With people not wanting to go through pages and pages of great sportswriting to get a story, the use of powerful ledes is at an all-time premium. The quicker you get pulled in, the quicker you get knowledge and can be on your way. Don’t get me wrong, some people love long stories with in-depth coverage with many details that take time, but a lot of casual sports fans, or news readers in general just want news to be a quick thing.

The second article didn’t really capture the beauty of online journalism. Ford tries to say that online journalism is far away from reaching the heyday that print journalism had, and she may be correct, but blogging online gives people a chance to find their voice.

Before coming to college I had only written a few articles for my school newspaper, and to be honest, they sucked. You’d be hard-pressed to find me willingly show people my horrendous work. When I came to college, I contacted a start-up sports website and began writing for the Atlanta Braves page. Later on, they added a tennis page, which is my passion, and I gladly took the head writer role. From that point on, I really got to focus on finding my voice, realizing how I wanted to portray my thoughts and feelings, and how to get the messy ideas in my head into legible, coherent words.

Even though I said before that I have no clue how to predict the future, I believe that in the nearest of near future, blogging that features great reporting/writing will be recognized and will reach the same heights as print did. That’s what I’m banking on, at least.

Joe Cranney reading

I'm in love with the lede written about Richard Lebe. As an editor of a paper who constantly tries to stress the importance of ledes in news writing, it's refreshing to read a lede that so perfectly encapsulates how an engaging beginning of a story will always make the reader want to find out more. I thought that Carey's choice of leading this chapter on ledes with a story about a perfect lede even more so reinforced the idea behind their importance. I wanted to read more after reading the lede written by Eddie Labey.

The breakdown of the five 'W's and the 'H' made me think that those questions are the basic idea behind journalism; telling the stories that people want to hear about in detail. It is a journalist's job to decide what stories people want to hear, and answer those six important questions along the way. When speaking about the events of journalism happening today, Carey mentions the importance of a morning read of The New York Times, which has been dubbed "the agenda setter" of news. The Times sets the standard for what stories people want to hear about, and those stories trickle down to news organizations across the country.

I can relate this to my life. When reading the Times this morning, I read a story about Joe Frazier's former gym in Philadelphia that is now a discount furniture store. I learned that a Temple professor has championed an effort via one of his classes to have the gym pronounced as an historical artifact to protect/restore the building. I will now be writing an article on this for The Temple News. The  Times set the news agenda for the school newspaper.

I didn't enjoy the second article by Ford. When making her point about the reputability of newspapers as opposed to the Internet, she speaks of the two as totally separate entities. She argues that the Internet doesn't have the reputation that the Times has built during its 100+ year history, and cannot play catchup that quickly in that regard.

What she doesn't consider is the point that the Times has its own web site. It's reputation carries over to the Internet. It's remiss to separate newspapers from the Internet because every major newspaper in the country has an online equivalent.

Overall, I thought the Carey chapter was a good read. Ford's article fell short.

Anthony Bellino Blog 1

            The death of journalism is a statement that many people are using to describe the fading of print journalism from our society. Throughout both pieces each of the authors make points to both verify and take away from the argument that journalism is “dying.” Certainly in the last decade since the emergence of the internet it has been tough for newspapers and other facets of print media to break stories before someone that is blogging from a laptop that is wirelessly connected or someone who is tweeting from a cell phone. No longer do we see Edwin Lahey’s story about the murder of Richard Loeb from inside a prison before we see it on the internet.

            The thought that journalism is dying is not appropriate to say but the term I believe that should be used is evolving. At this point there are still newspapers going out daily, while circulation may not be what it was in 1924 the papers are still standing. They are important because of the point that Catherine Ford makes in her piece from The StarPhoenix that print news can be if stored properly saved forever, unlike digital pieces where as hard as you try to save them over long periods of time they may still be lost forever. The only problem the emergence of online journalism presents is who is a journalist and what is credible, as we spoke about in class last Thursday. There are parody accounts of almost anyone who is in mainstream media on twitter, and people are constantly posting false news all over the internet. This though can be overcome and I believe that the internet’s role in journalism is a great thing. Live scoring updates, tweets about injuries and real time news all at the click of a button. The future is certainly going to be interesting for the quickly evolving world of journalism.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Humongous Melonheads blog, run by guys named Joe, Anthony, Ean, Steve and one other guy.