Bigfooty and the new sports media

[btdg]

The article in todays newspaper about players got me thinking a bit, and apologies for the length of this post. I don't believe for a second that players concern themselves at all about what gets posted on Bigfooty. They might read it to stoke their egos, but they'll beat themselves up much more about what the coach says about their kicking than what houlihan_is_a_girl_33 says on bigfooty. I mean, seriously - they're professional footballers, are we really expected to believe they're suffering depression as a result of what anonymous posters write on an internet website?

What I saw and read in that article, though, was the latest in a series of attacks or jibes by the print media, particularly the Herald Sun, on the new football media. Barely a week goes by now that there isn't a newspaper article talking about football blogs and websites (with Bigfooty prominently mentioned along with a couple of others), and these articles are generally negative. My take on this is that it is a response by journalists who are struggling to come to terms with modern football journalism, who resent the new media and long for the good old days.

15 years ago, newspapers were king when it came to sport, and football in particular. The action took place on Saturday, and we could go to see our team, then watch the highlights of the rest, and relied heavily on the newspaper reporters to tell us what happened. Even the commentators generally only saw 1-2 games a week. For news, we might hear about it on the radio, but for full reports on the games, and everything that happened in between, we turned to newspapers and print media the following day, and got a full report. And the newspapers made journalists into stars. The Big 3 - Caroline Wilson, Mike Sheehan and Patrick Smith - built up great reputations with clubs, coaches and players, and parlayed this into 'breaking stories'. They always had the inside word, and prided themselves on having the freshest and most comprehensive stories - and got paid pretty damn well for it. To be honest, though, the journalists were pretty lazy (and not just the big 3). Stories were handed to them by media managers anxious to put a positive spin on things, and they never really analysed things anyway - because a negative story would risk jeapordising the relationship. Mostly, they wrote puff-pieces, 2-page spreads on a player detailing his rise from bush footy player to AFL star, or other formulaic rubbish. When they did write a negative story, they went all out on the attack; timing their run just when a club was facing a leadership challenge or coaching change, so that at the least there would be a new administration or coach to deal with - the precious locker-room relationship wasn't at risk. When they wrote about games, they only really had to provide a recap - goal-kickers, best players (didn't really matter how accurate they were), who punched who. Most people didn't actually see the game, so they weren't really held to account all that much. They could get away with repeating a lot of tired old cliches - teams could be too old, player x was the best, etc, without ever justifying it.

But the rise of the internet - blogs, forums, websites, changes all that. Now, for breaking news, we go to Bigfooty. If something happens, it'll be up there within minutes, and if its significant within an hour we'll have a 30-page thread on it. Every game is on tv now too, and we have SEN providing instant radio analysis. We've got draft experts who are respected and provide us with running commentaries during the year, people who go to training and report on what happens, people who attended games who provide respected opinions. There's also a whole lot of muppets, but mostly we just enjoy the banter they provide.

Better than that, we get multiple perspectives on events; every angle is covered, debated, and discussed. By the time Sunday morning comes around, we've already forgotten about last night, and we're starting threads on next weeks game. Not only that, but the perspectives come from people who don't have to worry about building locker-room relationships in order to get the next 'scoop' handed to them on a platter. Posters on bigfooty don't care at all whether Jordan Russell is pissed off about the thread they started on him, so they can freely express their opinions. Sometimes those opinions boil over, sometimes they are coloured by bias, but often those make for the most interesting posts; they at least add a flavour you don't get in the newspaper. Compare headings:
'Blues lose thriller to Lions at Gabba: Brown kicks 5"; with
'Bloody pissweak effort by Blues last night'
Which story do you want to read? An emotionless report of a game you already saw and know everything about, or a rant from an emotional poster you can engage with (and respond to if you wish)? Of course its the latter. Even better, we can openly disagree with the opinions of the self-proclaimed footy gods. Disagree with Mike Sheehan's votes? Call him on it by starting your own thread. Others might have a different view, but it certainly cuts into his ego...

The USA has already gone down this path. Blog sites are king. Arguably the most prominent sports reporter in the USA is Bill Simmons on ESPN; popular because he rejects the idea that to write about sports you have to maintain good locker room relations, and instead writes what he thinks and feels. Columns teeming with emotion, sometimes overdone, but always interesting, humerous and enjoyable rather than bland reports handscripted by the clubs themselves. Essentially, he is just a really, really good blog writer/message board poster.

Bascially, the footy journalists see the writing on the wall. We don't want bland reports and 'scoops' that are really just a puff piece about how player x is tearing it up in the preseason. We want insightful analysis and commentary. We want entertaining articles that highlight aspects of the game that we and everyone on Bigfooty missed - if that means emulating the Simmons' and drawing links to pop culture or going somewhat off topic, the so be it. Some columnists do this - the Leaping Larry L's and Richard Hinds' of the journalist world. But right now, those guys are the minority, and the head guys, the Caroline Wilson's and Patrick Smiths, are fighting back. So every week, they're criticising the blogosphere. Apparently, we're hurting the feelings of players. Apparently, you can post anonymously and just make stuff up?

I say bring it on. Every one of those articles makes them look a little bit more foolish, and hastens the day when we get some high quality, entertaining footy journalism that enhances our enjoyment of the game, instead of the muckraking/pandering/bland tripe that we get in the newspapers currently. Anyway, food for thought, I'd be interested in others responses.

[NQTIGER]

great post....al you say is true

[Ron The Bear]

Good post btdg.

Some people prefer colourful opinions to the incredibly bland articles produced by AFL mouthpieces such as afl.com and the Record.

[btdg]

Originally Posted by Ron The Bear

Good post btdg.

Some people prefer colourful opinions to the incredibly bland articles produced by AFL mouthpieces such as afl.com and the Record.

Cheers - I hadn't even thought about those disgraces to 'journalism'. The record is useful for the teams and numbers, a few stats, and thats about it. They don't even provide interesting match previews and reviews - even though they generally have totally partisan crowds.

I should add to the above; there's something really cheap about the latest attempt to discredit the new media: "Players told not to ready bigfooty" or whatever it was. Like its all somehow beneath contemplation, that implicitly the only thing worth reading is written by the professionals in the newspaper.

[pharro]

Originally Posted by btdg

I should add to the above; there's something really cheap about the latest attempt to discredit the new media: "Players told not to ready bigfooty" or whatever it was. Like its all somehow beneath contemplation, that implicitly the only thing worth reading is written by the professionals in the newspaper.

Recently spoke with arguably the highest profile AFL footballer who is known to have suffered depression and though he was particularly critical of footy forums, he was equally contemptuous of newspapers, and the way they treat players. So is there a newspaper article waiting to be written about players refusing to read newspapers? Didn't think so.

[KarmaGeddon]

Originally Posted by pharro

Recently spoke with arguably the highest profile AFL footballer who is known to have suffered depression and though he was particularly critical of footy forums, he was equally contemptuous of newspapers, and the way they treat players. So is there a newspaper article waiting to be written about players refusing to read newspapers? Didn't think so.

Newspapers aren't anywhere near as derogative and insulting as blogs in the whole.
They know they are culpable of libel if they go too far. Bloggers are anonymous.

Dig deeper.

[The Great Barry Besanko]

Top post, one of the best i've read on here.

Sports journos (most of them are sports reporters) are vastly overpaid and overrated (with just a few exceptions). Any dedicated fan with a half decent grasp of the English language could do just as good a job.

Very much a case of who you know rather than what you know. Nepotism runs rife e.g Samantha Lane, Christi Malthouse, Jim Wilson, Rohan Connolly , Caroline Wilson , Robbo (??? I'm pretty sure).

Everyone of these reporters/journos should watch virtually every match. Too many (as evidenced on radio) don't and really there's no excuse for it.
Compared to some top overseas journos, there analysis is crap. Some still write like they're in the 70s.

As for sites like this harming players/coaches, you've got to be joking!! Journos criticisms in wide circulation newspapers would do far more harm than some anonymous thread on here. To say otherwise is ridiculous, much like today's article.

[topdon]

Great post. Mate, i haven't bought a newspaper (for the sole purpose of reading the footy section) in years. They are far too many egos in footy. With more accredited journalists reporting on footy than there are players, some look to sites like this to find their next scoop. Its lazy journalism, but unfortunately lazy journalists are in the majority. They have to fill their quotas afterall!

Must have been a slow news day.

[robaba]

I wouldn't be surprised if the good old AFL is really behind all this.
They like to control the media , so they have very good 'friends' in the major media working for them. For example this is obvious from today's puff piece about AA in the Age. There are very very few hard hitting critical stories on the AFL in the commercial media. I suppose you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
This is where the internet and forums like BigFooty have made huge inroads.

[blues4flag]

Excellent post.

[Sanks]

Post of the year IMO

The more 'journalists' like Patrick Smith and Caroline Wilson complain about sites like bigfooty.com, the more it shows how truely unimaginative, uninsightful and passionless they are about what they do.

[BLue_Bloys]

Originally Posted by robaba

I wouldn't be surprised if the good old AFL is really behind all this.
They like to control the media , so they have very good 'friends' in the major media working for them. For example this is obvious from today's puff piece about AA in the Age. There are very very few hard hitting critical stories on the AFL in the commercial media. I suppose you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
This is where the internet and forums like BigFooty have made huge inroads.

Exactly, you wonder if the Journalists are really behind these articles (in todays case I do). Print Media and TV would definitely be worried about the internet and the ramifications it will have on their business. Though, there will most likely remain one constant amongst old and new media which is the Journalist itself. There will always be a need for a good one no matter which medium is used.

On a side note assuming the AFL is attempting to police these sites in some way, surely they have stumbled across the thousands of posts highlighting the frustration humour from the official AFL website

[fairdinkum]

I wonder how many people really read the crap that Mike Sheahan and co. write in the papers when the article isn't about their own team. I'm guessing that it isn't as many as those 'journos' would like to think.

Don't get me wrong. They write some good stuff sometimes. I read an article by Sam Lane about Akermanis the other week that I thought was well written and interesting. Unfortunately, such articles are few and far between.

Let's be honest - if you are a professional who gets paid to analyse footy, you should be watching 8 games a week and tipping at least 6 winners every round. You should also be predicting who will go well and why. What our current crop of 'journos' actually do is tell who went well and why they think this happened. There's a big difference.

[gangsta deluxe]

Excellent job. That was an entertaining read and you had a point that I'm sure 99% of the people on this site would agree with. It needed to be said.

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

Terrific rebuttal - I don't think anyone who treads these boards could disagree.

The thing I find amazing is that in their haste to defend themselves by blowing off internet forums, they are alienating the very audience that they are trying to capture.