Media attention is tough to get in a big market. Two years ago, Loyola was the darling with its Final Four run. Yesterday, they play a home afternoon game on a five game win streak and there's not one word in the Chicago Tribune about it this morning, but there is Teddy Greenstein's detailed report on Saturday night's DePaul-NU game. That's the reality of being in a pro market. Win big, or you don't get noticed, and don't count on that coverage to last.
Big Market media reality
- Thread starter Catreporter
- Start date
They also had a beloved novelty in Sister Jean. People pay attention when a 98 year-old travels to your tournament games.
ya if you look at the marquee football and b-ball programs most are not in or next to major cities: football is Duke, UNC, Kentucky, MSU, Kansas. Villanova is an exception but often considered a little school that could underdog and not really a big dog. In football Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Oklahoma. People get excited in LA when USC is good but barely notice when they fall off.
The state of the media is also a huge factor. The Salt Lake Tribune, the "alternative voice" to the LDS Church owned Deseret News, has become a 501 (c) 3, and is actively soliciting "charitable donations" in order to continue its reporting mission. A couple of months ago, the paper did a "crowd funding" solicitation in order to raise enough money to keep a reporter in a rural area of its coverage zone. The newspaper I worked for in Pocatello when I got out of Medill, the Idaho State Journal, now has two -- that's right, 2 -- fulltime news reporters. They do have three sportswriters, which is a nod to the fact that covering local sports still seems to be the one place where "mainstream" media appeals to a distinct readership. By the way, I think they can retire that term, "mainstream" media. It's more like "main trickle" media for most of the more traditional news outlets these days.
Chicago Tribune sports section is thinning out. No high school coverage, minimal college reporting except for Teddy (who also does golf), and all Bears all the time in football season, with more and more syndicated stuff to fill in the blanks.
I would say most of the coverage has gone digital. Just look at Reddit. Their college hoops thread has 1.1 million subscribers and the news on there is outstanding. Also the game threads, even for our games is really fun to read and has hundreds if not thousands of comments.
New law largely outlaws independent contractors. They have to be treated as full time employees. This has a big impact on sports writers in those markets.
Vox Media, which operates SB Nation just let go of hundreds of contract sports writers.
The direction of sports media in this town is horseshit!! And college basketball is paying a huge price for it.
I assume sportstalk on The Score has an misguided HUGE influence on the direction, but the journalism in sports journalism is withering away. Journalism should not be established by ratings and clicks. You either want to cover sports in a widespread fashion or you don't.
I understand how strong the numbers for the NFL and the Bears. But if you want to cover a market appropriately, it shouldn't result in over-coverage of one topic, and zero coverage in several other sports.
The Bears were a mediocre-at-best team, and everyone knew it from the fourth game of the year. Yet, 75% of all coverage is devoted to an organization that has won how many playoff games in the last ten years?
Fine. What's the next best coverage for winter? That joke of an organization, the Bulls. Sure, let's keep talking about them and totally ignore that DePaul is kiling it against a really good schedule.
I understand journalism budgets are limited. And let's forget my favorite for a moment, NU. The fact that 12-1 DePaul gets Chicago Fire-like coverage, for me, speaks pretty poorly to what coverage of sports in this town has become. What do you see more: articles about local college basketball or sports media. Sports media BY FAR.
I also understand newspapers are dying. But for me, the ultimate example of this is Jon Greenberg and local coverage in the Athletic that is far from dying. I'm not saying they need to cover every game with a beat writer but if you can't do a pre-season intro, pre-conference/mid-season update and an end-of-the-year roundup, plus a coach profile and maybe a player profile for DePaul, NU, probably Illinois (booooo!!) and Loyola/mid-major flavor of the year, you're not doing your job as a Chicago sports journalist. That's a perfect amount for one person to cover with college football. Bill Jauss made a historic career from covering multiple beats like this. But the Athletic is lucky if it even posts local college basketball scores (some yes, some no).
In the meantime, the Score needs to repeat ad nauseam how average Mitch Trubisky is. And local TV has become so generic that they are irrelevent. The Sun Times used AP stories for the Illinois and DePaul/NU game this weekend.
Either bring journalism to ALL the winter sports - not just two of them- or find an editor who can manage this in the budget.
I assume sportstalk on The Score has an misguided HUGE influence on the direction, but the journalism in sports journalism is withering away. Journalism should not be established by ratings and clicks. You either want to cover sports in a widespread fashion or you don't.
I understand how strong the numbers for the NFL and the Bears. But if you want to cover a market appropriately, it shouldn't result in over-coverage of one topic, and zero coverage in several other sports.
The Bears were a mediocre-at-best team, and everyone knew it from the fourth game of the year. Yet, 75% of all coverage is devoted to an organization that has won how many playoff games in the last ten years?
Fine. What's the next best coverage for winter? That joke of an organization, the Bulls. Sure, let's keep talking about them and totally ignore that DePaul is kiling it against a really good schedule.
I understand journalism budgets are limited. And let's forget my favorite for a moment, NU. The fact that 12-1 DePaul gets Chicago Fire-like coverage, for me, speaks pretty poorly to what coverage of sports in this town has become. What do you see more: articles about local college basketball or sports media. Sports media BY FAR.
I also understand newspapers are dying. But for me, the ultimate example of this is Jon Greenberg and local coverage in the Athletic that is far from dying. I'm not saying they need to cover every game with a beat writer but if you can't do a pre-season intro, pre-conference/mid-season update and an end-of-the-year roundup, plus a coach profile and maybe a player profile for DePaul, NU, probably Illinois (booooo!!) and Loyola/mid-major flavor of the year, you're not doing your job as a Chicago sports journalist. That's a perfect amount for one person to cover with college football. Bill Jauss made a historic career from covering multiple beats like this. But the Athletic is lucky if it even posts local college basketball scores (some yes, some no).
In the meantime, the Score needs to repeat ad nauseam how average Mitch Trubisky is. And local TV has become so generic that they are irrelevent. The Sun Times used AP stories for the Illinois and DePaul/NU game this weekend.
Either bring journalism to ALL the winter sports - not just two of them- or find an editor who can manage this in the budget.
Didn't notice the AP coverage of the NU game but overall I think the Sun-Times has a much better sports coverage than the Trib. True when the SCORE is finally finishes with it's Bears Monday, Bears Sunday, Bears Saturday crap the boys keep themselves busy talking about the Sox going to the Post Season. It ain't going to happen.
R/collegebasketball is the best. During our games there will be game threads and then also post game threads. It’s great for football too which is R/CFB. Really fun to follow.
High school football and hoops coverage used to be extensive in Chicago newspapers. Now: Nothing, not even a feature on an outstanding player. Signing day used to get coverage, now almost nothing. Pretty much the same with local TV. It's a new media world out there and this Medill grad doesn't like it at all.
Allow me one more point that I'd like to make clear.
I know budgets are an issue. But I dont buy the budget argument when for instance, the Tribune has four people covering a below-500 Bears team. At the same time, the Athetic has two people covering the Cubs ... in the off season. The ST has a weekly column dedicated to sports media.
That's not about budget. That's about choices.
I know budgets are an issue. But I dont buy the budget argument when for instance, the Tribune has four people covering a below-500 Bears team. At the same time, the Athetic has two people covering the Cubs ... in the off season. The ST has a weekly column dedicated to sports media.
That's not about budget. That's about choices.
The Sun-Times has at least one full page on a high school sport daily, along with full coverage of a couple of games and scores of all the others.
It is about choices of how to spend a limited budget and use limited resources. When your analytics show you're getting 10 clicks per Bears article to 1 for college basketball coverage, well you go where the numbers take you.
Great discussion topic. At some point, sports "journalism" gave way to just entertainment. I started to notice the difference once shows like Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption got huge. I love Wilbon, but his rise coincided with the demise of pure sports reporting. Not a judgment thing (I enjoy those shows with the exception of Skip). But the field is different now.
Would love to hear from the Medill grads on this topic.
Would love to hear from the Medill grads on this topic.
Revenue drives coverage now, more than ever. And with the analytics available these days, editors don't have to "guess" what people want to read or watch. They just look at the numbers (clicks). And with Facebook and other social media sites sucking off huge percentages of advertising revenues, local media outlets have far fewer resources to devote to coverage, and they have to be a lot more picky about where they apply those resources.
Someone please explain the attraction of threads during games. "Nice 3-pointer", "struggles with the press" and similar comments to me are pointless if you are watching the game and useless if you are not. That is what skilled play by play radio announcers do for a living. However, I am all for others enjoying the threads. Generational thing?
On another topic, two TV sports reporters screaming at each other over made-up differences or issues that make no difference, is painful. Last about 10 seconds.
On another topic, two TV sports reporters screaming at each other over made-up differences or issues that make no difference, is painful. Last about 10 seconds.
I can't remember the last time I looked at a physical newspaper or watched local news , and the only time I see their online content is if it is linked elsewhere
This is a good thread for an NU board! I hate to bring bad news, but I don't expect much of what we've called "journalism" to survive. Either a new internet-only subscription model will work (The Athletic: currently supported by massive amounts of investment, and the likes of Rivals) or else all coverage will be essentially business-interested (NU needs The Daily to recruit journalism students and get them experience, NUSports.com provides marketing/PR support for the athletic department). I have NO faith in the future of journalism in newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio.
The internet exploded the older model by (1) destroying ad-based budgets first by killing classifieds and then by killing all other ads, thanks to Google and Facebook, and (2) in shrinking budgets forcing all media to go after the biggest fish, reinforced by internet metrics that return precise reader statistics. As someone has already said, if you get 100 clicks on anything related to the Bears for every one click related to NU (being generous here to NU), and you're supported by banner ads that are essentially worthless now, what are you gonna do? You're gonna stir up controversy and debate, day after day after day, about the Bears. Even as you know that eventually you're just gonna get laid off.
In the last decade and a half, we've seen newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV shift focus to the big of the big (NFL in general, Cowboys in particular) because their stats show they can only keep attention by focusing on the most popular-level sports, and by focusing on anything BUT the sports (especially by driving controversy over personalities). If we want NU-related content in the future, we'll probably end up relying on Rivals and NUSports.com. We won't likely have enough interest to get a reporter from The Athletic, and we'll rarely be big enough to warrant space on the old media platforms.
If you wonder why Fitz doesn't care about getting publicity, well, it's probably because he knows there isn't anyone left to write about what he says. And he's working in a city that's prohibitively cost-effective for mass marketing, because to reach one person through traditional paths means you have to pay for 100 who will never become regular customers/fans.
The internet exploded the older model by (1) destroying ad-based budgets first by killing classifieds and then by killing all other ads, thanks to Google and Facebook, and (2) in shrinking budgets forcing all media to go after the biggest fish, reinforced by internet metrics that return precise reader statistics. As someone has already said, if you get 100 clicks on anything related to the Bears for every one click related to NU (being generous here to NU), and you're supported by banner ads that are essentially worthless now, what are you gonna do? You're gonna stir up controversy and debate, day after day after day, about the Bears. Even as you know that eventually you're just gonna get laid off.
In the last decade and a half, we've seen newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV shift focus to the big of the big (NFL in general, Cowboys in particular) because their stats show they can only keep attention by focusing on the most popular-level sports, and by focusing on anything BUT the sports (especially by driving controversy over personalities). If we want NU-related content in the future, we'll probably end up relying on Rivals and NUSports.com. We won't likely have enough interest to get a reporter from The Athletic, and we'll rarely be big enough to warrant space on the old media platforms.
If you wonder why Fitz doesn't care about getting publicity, well, it's probably because he knows there isn't anyone left to write about what he says. And he's working in a city that's prohibitively cost-effective for mass marketing, because to reach one person through traditional paths means you have to pay for 100 who will never become regular customers/fans.
Bringing up Reddit is interesting. I am on r/cfb and several other subs a lot. Outside of game threads, how many topics are started by original journalism produced by a reporter somewhere? The same goes for Facebook or Twitter. How much of the resulting ad revenue goes back to the organizations that funded that content? It’s pure exploitation. There are 100 ways the legacy media has fueled its own demise, many of them predating the social Internet. But leaving control of the Internet in the hands of a few giants who pay nothing to content producers is THE hurdle.
See, this is the problem I have with completely allocating resources based on market analytics or clicks.
Rarely does the general public or conventional wisdom make a choice that provides a better product. McDondalds getsmore visits and a better profit than Alinea. Does that make it a better restaurant?
I know I'm pissing in the wind with that argument, but at some point, some organization needs to realize 10% profit and a better long-term product is better than 20% profit, a dying industry and a less informed readership. In the chicken-egg analysis, I dont believe less readership(and less ad revenue) came before less coverage. The garbage content that USA Today created was probably the start of this mess.
Rarely does the general public or conventional wisdom make a choice that provides a better product. McDondalds getsmore visits and a better profit than Alinea. Does that make it a better restaurant?
I know I'm pissing in the wind with that argument, but at some point, some organization needs to realize 10% profit and a better long-term product is better than 20% profit, a dying industry and a less informed readership. In the chicken-egg analysis, I dont believe less readership(and less ad revenue) came before less coverage. The garbage content that USA Today created was probably the start of this mess.
I think most of this media would be happy with ANY revenue at this point. In my view it's a failed industry. It's just a matter of time. Just look at USA Today. They have now ONE college football writer. They fired the other one last week. A lot of folks think of media as a public service, an image journalists and places like Medill have been happy to perpetuate, because it makes us journalists seem special. We're not. We're expendable. It's a business. And it's selling a product that not many people want in this entertainment-soaked landscape. They key moment came when newspapers could no longer count in the 1990s on classifieds revenue. It's a painful moment when you realize that few ever subscribed for your hard-hitting expose of city hall or your in-depth profile of the college athlete with a heartwarming story. They just wanted the box scores and the funnies.
I want to point out a few bright spots, though:
1. Live sports: if you wanted to be a sports broadcaster, congratulations! That job market exploded. Same for television commentary. Compared to 15 years ago now we get every single game live on television, with only a few exceptions in men's basketball. And just consider the kind of increased coverage we get on Big 10 Network or MLB Network compared to what SportsCenter used to do.
2. The Athletic: it's nice to see what sports journalists can do when they're not bound to just write game recaps. Another bonus: the part-time contributions of really gifted writers who assess stats and break down game film.
3. Podcasts: for most any time you'll find way more interesting content on podcasts, free of ads, compared to anything you used to get on radio.
Best of times, worst of times.
THIS. Facebook and Google were hailed as saviors. They will end up killing the industry.
You've identified the big problem. Early on, newspapers allowed their content to go free on the internet, not realizing it would kill their business. Local TV did the same with cable. Both have tried to recover, but that has been difficult.
Amen! It drives me crazy that several organizations with which I must interact have their ONLY presence on Facebook. Trying to get them to change that has been to tilt at windmills.
How many different ways does Zuckerberg need to conduct business - shall we say - immorally before people understand he will do anything with your information and more importantly your ideas to increase his financial position?
I've never had a Facebook account. Damn, I really missed out as we enter the down side of its bell curve.
Amazing, Sec.112! … No Facebook whatsoever? Really. How, then, do you keep up with which restaurant your cousin and his wife ate at last Sunday in East Armpit Wyoming on their trip to Yosemite? What about the photo of your neice’s baby playing with their family dog? The detailed description of your friend’s luggage ending up in LA rather than Las Vegas. You must feel SO disconnected and ill-informed.
I have been off Facebook for years and never miss it. It is a helpful platform for wasting your time, just like most of social media. However don’t get me started - it and Google are both monopolies and thus ripe for a legislative crackdown.
I will say that the debate by our more-informed Medill grads about the general decline of our media is interesting. “The Wire” hit on some of these themes in its final season over 10 years ago, although not regarding sports reporting.
I keep meaning to sign up for a paid subscription to our local newspaper. They have a paid firewall even for the police blotter. That’s one way to stem the tide of losing “true journalism”.