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.
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.
