Blogging and Sports Journalism - Can't We Get Along?

I guess that I must be the last person weighing in on this issue, and I'm not carrying much weight to throw in. However, I feel like I'm one of the people caught in between the sides of this suddenly hot issue.

For those of you that haven't heard about the craziness of Bissinger v. Leitch, here's the video. Anyone who is interested in how sports are going to be covered in the future should watch it. As well as anyone who loves to watch a profanity-laced argument on TV. Isn't it ironic that Bissinger accuses bloggers of vulgarity by whipping out the bleepables?

I feel like Costas was a good moderator, but I also felt like both sides were misrepresented. If you're going to do a debate, do it right. Get a roundtable of bloggers and writers - not just the poster boy for sports blogs, an irate Pulitzer winner and a random athlete who has a vague understanding of the topic (no offense, but Braylon Edwards was beyond out of place in that debate).

BLOGGERS LOOK LIKE: Young irresponsible jerks who live in Mom and Dad's basement and take out their youthful angst on sports stars through a series of personal attacks.

SPORTSWRITERS LOOK LIKE: Ancient, arrogant grumps who love the smell of their own flatulence and fight their fear of the younger generation with outright animosity.

BRAYLON EDWARDS LOOKS: Articulate, but unprepared to talk about blogging specifically. Sorry, buddy. Do your homework.

All of these perception beg the question: What is the real deal about blogging? Is it the next thing in sports journalism? Is it just a bunch of kids making up stuff on their computers?

The answer: It's a movement of culture. It doesn't have to make sense by our traditional standards - it just is.

The confusion lies in perceived overlap of fields. The media feels threatened because people increasingly get their news from blogs. The bloggers feel like they have to "fight the power" of traditional media, either because their coverage doesn't satisfy them or because their voice isn't being heard.

I wouldn't say blogging is the same as "journalism," partly because they don't have the same standards, but also partly because the word mentally confines the movement to journalistic functions. It's a battle of semantics, but really, they don't have to serve the same functions.

If ESPN were to shut down for one day, how would the bloggers get their news other than from people who were actually at sporting events anyway? And although the media can technically function without blogs, where is the outlet for a fan's opinion? I think in a way, traditional media and the blogosphere can form a weird harmony, even if they're bashing each other, because they don't necessarily do the same things. Think about it.

I also would like to defend blogging on a personal level, because in my experience, most people I've met in the online domain are perfectly nice, and some even strive to create a more responsible environment. Leitch is right - it really is a meritocracy. Among other bloggers, you're responsible for what you write. People get a reputation for reporting false rumors or being overly judgemental, although I think people on the Internet are given a lot more leeway.

Also, I think critics should take into account that while athletes are dismayed when their drunk pictures are displayed online, they are also embracing this trend. Yardbarker is one online forum where athletes are starting their own blogs. And not just no-namers, guys like Donovan McNabb and Baron Davis - yes, really. And their are ones who actually talk back to you: Where else is an NFL fullback like Ovie Mughelli going to talk to a dopey college kid like me? Blogging is calling to a market demand for sports coverage on a more personal level. We still get our info from the sports media moguls, and guys like me still want to read the paper every day, but we get to add our own spin. And you know what? People respond to that. They actually like to read it.

About content: I try to be mindful that my subjects are people and they could read it, but it is also a basic tenet of journalism in general that athletes are public figures and they know what they're getting into. Even Joe Newspaper Writer can agree with that. I try to avoid swearing and innapropriate references just out of decency, and to maintain a degree of professionalism. Many bloggers don't really have that standard, and on some level I feel that a lot of web content is trashy and immature, but I can't help that - I just try to produce my own work at a respectable level of quality.

One of Bissinger's valid points (and Michael Wilbon said this to me as well) is that bloggers don't have the experience of a professional writer and they aren't close enough to the game to know the intricate details and true nature that goes into being a great writer. If someone is going to write their opinion they should know these things.

I've tried to take this to heart and not overstep my bounds: I go to games and I cover the access I get. I make it a point to say when a guess is a guess. But in the same breath, why does blogging have to be held to the same standard as newspaper writing? Is it possible that sports media just feels a threat to their industry? I think that blogging can have its niche in the sports world, as traditional coverage can have its niche. One is fan opinion, the other is insider opinion - is it so bad that we should allow both? I don't think so, and I think they overlap less than people realize. Plus, we honestly have no idea where this technology is taking us.

We're stuck in the standards of our conventional systems: Sports media are caught up in the idea that blogging will replace them, and I think a lot of bloggers have it in their heads that they will. But take an example: When someone invented a home phone with a camera in it (so you could talk and look at someone), a lot of people thought they would replace regular phones. It didn't happen. Instead, we have online video chat that we can use on computers (which has come in very useful for business conferencing), and home phones are being replaced by cell phones simply for convenience reasons. No one uses home phones with cameras. Why? Because they don't conflict as much as we thought they would. You don't talk to someone on the phone necessarily for the same reasons you see them face-to-face.

Hopefully that analogy makes a little bit of sense. I see why there's so much strife between these parties, but at the same time, it seems overblown. I think we should do a media v. blogosphere part two, but do it right with more individuals who will represent a broader spectrum of their fields, rather than just representing, in effect, themselves.

It shouldn't be confrontational - it should be constructive. Old media and new media are blending together whether we like it or not, and sooner or later we're going to have to learn to be cooperative, not to mention work in both strata at the same time. There's a lot of shaking up to be done, but just trying to tear each others' throats out on national TV isn't going to make this stuff go away.

Photo Credits: Deadspin, Business Blog Consulting, RetireSloan.com, 700level.com, CBS Local

Bubble Just Got Popped

I was working at an event today, watching some middle-aged guys schmooze around before things got going. All they were talking about was the Clemson Clobbering, as some are now calling it. They talked about all the things I routinely discuss in these columns - turnovers, the freshmen in the rotation, Vasquez, missed shots and even Jerome Burney.

I didn't say a single thing.

It was simple: I didn't have the heart to say anything because I was at that game. I still don't understand exactly what happened last night, and I probably never will. This is what I felt like last night:



Today? I just don't know. It actually humiliating to thing we choked with a 20-point lead in hand. We got the lead at 11:21 in the 2nd half. We scored exactly one point all the way until 6:44, when Clemson had shrunk the lead down to 7 points. Also, from 4:48 left to 1:30, Maryland didn't score once. By then Clemson was down only by four, which became two, which became a tie, which became a 3-point lead with 2.3 seconds to spare.

By the way, most effective full-court press I've ever seen. We could not break it at the end of the game. Instead, our strategy was to play kind of badly, or at least that was the strategy we executed.

It stinks to get all the negative press just after we got on the radar. We were being talked about as an "in team." Now, what are we? Uhh ... well in this projection, but for how long? Do we really want to be among the last four in? ESPN pundits yesterday were saying Maryland is the team that is saying, "Please, take us out of the tournament!" Kinda sorta, we speak with our play.

I know Gary calls out the fans every once in awhile, and I'm for trying to have positive outlooks, but the truth is that sometimes the fans deserve better. When I was looking around, it looked like there wasn't an empty seat in the house. The crowd came out, and they did their job, and they cheered when they were supposed to. Some people on the court did not do their job, and I think the players would likely agree with that sentiment.

It's a harsh reality to face, but let's face it:

- One win against ranked teams
- A mediocre 18-12 record (we'll have to reach for 20 wins)
- A mediocre 8-7 conference record in a muddled conference
- Weak final opponent before ACC tournment (UVA)
- Probably a weak first ACC tourney game, followed by a hard one

That's not NCAA material. Bottom line. Period. Finito. I can't put anymore emphasis on that.

If we want a partner at the dance, I would advise the team to start winning. We can do this by:

- Making more than 2 three-pointers
- Limiting our opponent's offensive rebounds (The Tigers had 17)
- Not turning the ball over 21 times

But I'm not sure that we can do those things. I'm going to be honest: the thought that the Tigers could actually win didn't even enter my mind until they cut the lead to 4. Even the last shot, I didn't think would go in (and it was a fantastic shot, to Oglesby's credit, plus he was fouled). But the letdown after ... something I have trouble describing.

JEROME BURNEY WATCH: Burney played a solid 16 minutes and ended up with 6 points, 3 rebounds and a stunning 4 blocks. Good overall effort, but I thought that he could've rebounded better and that his blocks typically led to a Clemson offensive rebound. Still, he played just as well as Boom, who had a bad night for his standards.

Extra notes:

I know everyone is down now (except other ACC team fans), but I thought maybe some things would brighten up your day.

Some of you are aware that Hank Steinbrenner recently denied the existence of a national Red Sox fanbase. ESPN got his take on some other franchises as well.

Also, an interesting story and a cautionary tale about why you should never let your players take too many liberties with their bios.

That's it. Let's regroup and crush UVA.

Photo Credit: Baltimore Sun