Where to for quality Rugby journalism???
- Thread starter Elfster
- Start date
Mullos
Stan Wickham (3)
No question GG was a JON sycophant and he has gone back into an attack dog of the ARU with the new admin just like when Flowers was in charge. On top of this his general bullshitting has gone through the roof at ESPN.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
However bad rugby journalism and commentary at least we dont have to put up with what I just heard David Morrow on the ABC say in the Souths v Canterbury game:
"he just tried to do a Mathew Flinders and circumnavigate the world"
"he just tried to do a Mathew Flinders and circumnavigate the world"
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
In an article about the Wallabies in the upcoming 2015 RWC
We're going back in time and Robbie is coaching.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-against-england-at-rwc15-20130502-2iw1h.html
We're going back in time and Robbie is coaching.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-against-england-at-rwc15-20130502-2iw1h.html
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
To top it all off the entire issue with concussions in the NFL revolved around helmet-to-helmet contact, not shoulder charging.
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Spoke to a journo today about their industry. Basically said that the classified section use to be termed as 'rivers of Gold' for newspapers and the proliferation of the Internet has dried up this river. Coupled with the decrease in circulation and reduced advertising this has lead to well known revenue reduction for print media.
They commented that today's journalists are under enormous pressure to write more with much fewer resources. That's why we see some of the incorrect facts and typos that we've picked up. The pressure they are under to meet deadlines is immense.
They commented that up 50% of newspaper content is PR generated because its basically already prepared and not as expensive to develop that news/journalist generated content. One very prominent paper fills its pages with up to 70% PR generated content. As a result they are very concerned about the quality of news that is generated for us. This relates to all news not just rugby news.
You get the feeling that the recent positive news stories of the ARU and Waratahs financial results are examples of PR generated news. The type of analysis that Scott Allen and USARugger did is important but there isn't the time nor resources for the journos to conduct this analysis.
They commented that today's journalists are under enormous pressure to write more with much fewer resources. That's why we see some of the incorrect facts and typos that we've picked up. The pressure they are under to meet deadlines is immense.
They commented that up 50% of newspaper content is PR generated because its basically already prepared and not as expensive to develop that news/journalist generated content. One very prominent paper fills its pages with up to 70% PR generated content. As a result they are very concerned about the quality of news that is generated for us. This relates to all news not just rugby news.
You get the feeling that the recent positive news stories of the ARU and Waratahs financial results are examples of PR generated news. The type of analysis that Scott Allen and USARugger did is important but there isn't the time nor resources for the journos to conduct this analysis.
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
and if they did, they could well lose access to the source of pr generate stories that is necessary to keep journos in business given the current economics.
Good post Ptah.
I am fairly sure that Scott Allen and USARugger are not full time on G&GR as well and use their spare time to do the detailed analysis. No reason why a Professional Writer can not find the time to do some stuff in detail from time to time.
Edit: That didn't read well. See below
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
Hugh perhaps they don't want to take their work home
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
There's no way someone who is supposed to be researching and writing 'full time' wouldn't have the ~90 minutes it took me to do that piece initially. Throw in making the infographics and learning WordPress and maybe three hours of time over the span of two weeks went into that. How could it be possible that somebody who is supposed to be researching leads and writing about them for a living couldn't spare 90 minutes a week to you know..do their job?
I do agree most journalists are too scared to lose their ARU contacts which is a crying shame.
I do agree most journalists are too scared to lose their ARU contacts which is a crying shame.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
'No reason why the time starved journos could not also use some of those pieces (with appropriate compensation) as well as the PR fluff'. And appropriate attribution-which sound suspiciously like some of what we read has NOT been attributed to the PR dept. IF we have to read PR fluff, surely it has to be declared that it is? (not that I read papers etc anyway)
Kudos to both btw, I enjoy very much.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Pathetic as it is I am sure you're right. Moreover, for me the remarkable thing is that so very little of useful substance for rugby readers comes from these ARU 'inside leaks', media conferences, post-game chats, 'friendly conversations with leading players', and such like. What does get so communicated is typically PR output, superficial guff and deliberately manipulated story lines all designed to suit the provider. Most overrated are the player interviews which hardly ever reveal anything of much value or fresh insight beyond the banal and ARU-trained motherhood worldview of all things Wallaby. And which ARU or S15 media conference ever revealed anything of engaging novelty or useful, uncontrolled information?
That so many of today's mainstream rugby writers treasure their access to the above types of sources and outputs says it all, namely: they are typically incapable of compiling original, well-researched stories providing genuine and fresh insight into rugby matters. Further, they are clearly intellectually lazy - paid for 40 hrs pw and working no more than 20 real hrs I'd guess - and simply can't be bothered to go where others don't, and look hard for the data that can generate real insight and useful educative writing for rugby enthusiasts.
No wonder 'old media' is in strife. In today's Aus rugby mainstream 'journalism' we see partly why - the reader is so poorly served, and the level of education of the average reader is pulsing ahead faster than that of the encrusted journalist mired in past habits and dying contacts.
Enter GAGR where the likes of Scott Allan and USARugger show what can be done with a mix of rugby passion, sharp intellect, a fresh perspective and a desire to find the better truth through the examination of facts and deeper data. They are truly the new frontier of rugby knowledge and enlivening insight. Long may they run.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Gonna address the rest of your post in the morning (want to catch a few hours of sleep before we watch the Reds rip the Farce a new asshole) but to be fair the player and coach interviews are vanilla in every country because nobody wants to be fined by the IRB. I remember a while back they threw out some ridiculous fine for a player mentioning a referee in a tweet, not insulting him or his officiating, but mentioning him. I may somewhat wrong and I'll admit I am hazy on the exact incident but the point is the IRB is the one at fault here, no so much the ARU. There is just very little these guys are 'safe' saying. There was a fucking hilarious interview done with either the head coach of Saracens or one of the French Top 14 clubs 1-2 years ago where he did nothing but pantomime and repeat what the reporter was asking him as a form of protest against these fines.
You get refreshing unscripted honesty from any cameo interview with the Honey Badger.
Nothing banal or ARU motherhood from the Honey Badger. Just enthusiasm and fun.
Nothing banal or ARU motherhood from the Honey Badger. Just enthusiasm and fun.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
RedsHappy
One big reason behind why the print media world feels so 'in strife' right now is that journalism is simply a dying industry.
The print media advertising bubble collapsed ages ago and digital advertising doesn't come close to matching it. Because of this staffs are cut, wages are lowered and it becomes harder and harder to get a job. Add in the fact that blogging exploded in roughly the same time period and you've compounded the problem.
There are now far, far more writers out there than there ever have been. The supply of journalistic material now far outweighs the demand for journalism.
This double-headed monster is having some profound effects. Just this morning I spotted two very basic grammatical errors on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Staff cuts means less eyes going over articles, amongst dozens of other things. I personally know my articles for G&GR would have looked and read like complete shit if not for the unsung heroes doing the behind the scenes editing.
Fact is if I thought that this was a realistic way to make a living in this day and age I wouldn't be in a Human Biology program prepping for a Master's in Public Health/International Peace and Conflict Resolution. I would be over the moon if I could make a living writing about rugby. Shit I would spend all day going over spreadsheets if it meant I could support myself writing about the game I love. Reality at the moment is that the industry is in shambles.
One big reason behind why the print media world feels so 'in strife' right now is that journalism is simply a dying industry.
The print media advertising bubble collapsed ages ago and digital advertising doesn't come close to matching it. Because of this staffs are cut, wages are lowered and it becomes harder and harder to get a job. Add in the fact that blogging exploded in roughly the same time period and you've compounded the problem.
There are now far, far more writers out there than there ever have been. The supply of journalistic material now far outweighs the demand for journalism.
This double-headed monster is having some profound effects. Just this morning I spotted two very basic grammatical errors on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Staff cuts means less eyes going over articles, amongst dozens of other things. I personally know my articles for G&GR would have looked and read like complete shit if not for the unsung heroes doing the behind the scenes editing.
Fact is if I thought that this was a realistic way to make a living in this day and age I wouldn't be in a Human Biology program prepping for a Master's in Public Health/International Peace and Conflict Resolution. I would be over the moon if I could make a living writing about rugby. Shit I would spend all day going over spreadsheets if it meant I could support myself writing about the game I love. Reality at the moment is that the industry is in shambles.
I disagree with a lot of this, particularly the implication that rugby journos are lazy idiots.
Firstly I think your expectations are out of kilter with the average sports fan. And that is who these guys are writing for, not hardcore types like you and me. The midweek player interviews aren't particularly engrossing, but they are readable and have a human angle that will interest the regular sports reader.
Take the recent G&GR piece on the ARU finances. A few commentators (including yourself) came back with the question 'why isn't the mainstream media covering this?'. And whilst it is a fair question, I believe the answer goes beyond your two ideas- namely that they are lazy and they want to protect their relationships with the ARU.
Firstly, that financial stuff is very complicated. Note that the the guy who did most of it for us (Scott Allen) works daily in that sphere, and hence is somewhat qualified to write about it. I would suggest a rugby journalist is a bit like me- didn't do anything numbers-based at uni, and has very little idea about how to read an annual report and pick out financial irregularities. So why should these people have to cover it for a national newspaper? They possess no qualifications to cover what is in essence a financial story, and a dense one at that.
The point is, contrary to what you have said, that these guys work bloody hard. They are made to do more with less resources (an example of this is Iain Payten having to cover the Ashes squad announcement). The role of the 'rugby journo' is no longer what it used to be. So the truth is these guys don't have the hours it takes to comb through reports and run long campaigns focusing on ARU finance.
And even if they did do the mainstream sporting public care? Well if it was obvious mismanagement or fraud then yes. But an increase in corporate expenditure? That may have a possible explanation? I don't know. It certainly isn't front page stuff though.
And to the point on protecting relationships with the ARU- it is true, but only to a point. Yes they rely on these bodies for access to players, coaches, games. But this stuff doesn't get withdrawn because of a negative story. The ARU isn't North Korea. You seem to want these guys to run prolonged campaigns against the ARU, with the assumption that there is a Watergate-esque story happening that is going undiscovered because our journos are too lazy and precious to pick it up.
But again it comes back to two things- Is there actually a story there? If so, does anyone care? I'd say the answer to both is 'probably not'. Yes, hardcore rugby fans like us may care about financial irregularities, but I'm not sure the man in the street does- how many stories do you see on the NRL or AFL Annual Reports? I can't remember many, though I confess those aren't sections I peruse with any great interest.
Even with this changing landscape, the end output is roughly the same as it always was. Reviews of the weekend's matches. Previews of upcoming matches. Midweek stories about injuries, selections, debutants, veterans, etc. I don't think the death of so-called 'old media' has much to do with the quality of the output, especially in the sports sphere.
G&GR does so well because the writers have freedoms that mainstream journos would kill for- no time pressure, no deadlines, no need for daily output, no need for accompanying images, no need to worry about defamation or advertising, no need to worry about relationships with controlling bodies, coaches or players. This freedom comes through in what we put out, and ultimately it makes us what we are.
I refer back to an article I wrote a year or so ago for the front page that I think still holds true. Worth a read if you missed it.
.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Or another example, Iain Payten having to write a reference for me. Totally unsolicited I hasten to add.
.
I think one thing people forget is that a lot of these journalists (and sports journalists in particular) spend a fair amount of their time having to travel to press conferences, wait for them to start and then sit around so they have their sound bite etc.
I'm sure they would be able to produce more in depth content if they didn't have to do so much of this as well as reporting on multiple sports.
There aren't a lot of investigative journalists employed by the big newspapers now and certainly almost none in the sports section.
On top of that, with all the cuts to journalists, you now have some journalists covering rugby who have very little interest in it. They have other sports they'd prefer to cover but get lumped with the odd rugby story to help cover the load. The same applies across all sports.
I'm sure they would be able to produce more in depth content if they didn't have to do so much of this as well as reporting on multiple sports.
There aren't a lot of investigative journalists employed by the big newspapers now and certainly almost none in the sports section.
On top of that, with all the cuts to journalists, you now have some journalists covering rugby who have very little interest in it. They have other sports they'd prefer to cover but get lumped with the odd rugby story to help cover the load. The same applies across all sports.