or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Media has changed, but Golf isn't as bad as other sports!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Media has changed, but Golf isn't as bad as other sports! - Page 2

post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Break80 View Post
 

Case in point ... http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10682317/josh-gordon-pretty-sure-cleveland-browns-draft-quarterback

 

How in the hell is this a story on the front page of espn.com???

That's absurd.  Not only is it ridiculous because it's just one guys opinion on something that hasn't even happened yet ... but it's not even a strong one.  He's "pretty sure" they might draft a QB.  Thanks for the info, espn.

 

Also noticed that it was a report of an interview on Sportscenter.  The next step would be Anchor 1 interviewing JOsh Gordon, and then 30 seconds later, Anchor 2 saying "This just in, Breaking News, Josh Gordon has an opinion on the draft."

 

Wait, now that I think about it ... CNN already kind of does that.  Don't they put "Breaking News" headlines along the bottom of the screen a lot with headlines that match what the guy being interviewed just said...

 

"This just in:  Josh Gordon wants a QB"

"This Just in:  Josh Gordon had a cheesesteak for lunch"

"This just in:  Josh Gordon wears a size 12 shoe."

post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

That's absurd.  Not only is it ridiculous because it's just one guys opinion on something that hasn't even happened yet ... but it's not even a strong one.  He's "pretty sure" they might draft a QB.  Thanks for the info, espn.

 

Also noticed that it was a report of an interview on Sportscenter.  The next step would be Anchor 1 interviewing JOsh Gordon, and then 30 seconds later, Anchor 2 saying "This just in, Breaking News, Josh Gordon has an opinion on the draft."

 

Wait, now that I think about it ... CNN already kind of does that.  Don't they put "Breaking News" headlines along the bottom of the screen a lot with headlines that match what the guy being interviewed just said...

 

"This just in:  Josh Gordon wants a QB"

"This Just in:  Josh Gordon had a cheesesteak for lunch"

"This just in:  Josh Gordon wears a size 12 shoe."

Hey, let's leave my team alone! Any media coverage of the Browns is good coverage, literally.

On a side note, you're right that this isn't news. But, it's refreshing to see something other than Johnny Football on ESPN! Oh, wait.. nevermind, he's doing his pro day in a HELMET AND PADS! Breaking news and is now being broadcast live, live tweeted, live blogged and analyzed by several different networks. Cleveland will be more of a circus if we draft him.

post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

"This Just in:  Josh Gordon had a cheesesteak for lunch"

"Sources say Josh Gordon may be Philly-bound."
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


"Sources say Josh Gordon may be Philly-bound."

"Adam Schefter now reporting that HIS sources reported this craving first, which led to his sources citing sources that he is in fact traveling to Philly. Stay tuned"

post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Another thing that really gets under my skin in this internet-its-all-about-the-clicks age is when writers or editors (not sure who's to blame for this one) assign titles to stories that entice you to click on them, and then you read the story and the title turned out to be a blatant lie.

 

(I can't find a good example right now, but I have definitely seen it more than just a few times)  It would be something like your Tiger Woods story - with that title that mentioned him mulling retiring, but all the story is about is that he has a bad back, and the writer ponders whether or not he should retire, or some random golfer who hasn't played in 20 years said he should retire, or something else entirely different than the title.

Here's a current example of one like this:  https://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/self-magazine-cancer-survivor-monika-allen-181452496.html

 

When you hover on the thumbnail on the yahoo frontpage, the headline says: "Magazine mocks cancer Survivors lame outfit"

 

Once you click on it, the headline says "Self magazine sorry for mocking cancer survivors marathon tutu"

 

This is like if they wrote a story about Brandel's "cavalier" comments about Tiger and put the headline on the front page as "Tiger's a cheater."

post #24 of 26

I'd say 'NewtoGolf' and 'Spyder' probably have this about right

 

Conventional news reporting has had to retreat in line with 'real time' developments of the instant access platforms that ensures that they're otherwise absolete within hours of going to press. The print media are the biggest victims in that they can no longer report the news as a consequence. What they do instead is try and manage our emotional response to a topical issue, by taking a story that is already out of date and then inviting the readr to judge it through a moral prism that they endeavour to frame themselves. Typical modus operendi is two steps

 

Step 1 -  take an unrepresentative minor story and attempt to inflame our outrage through their reporting of it, encouraging us to judge the subject

Step 2 - Having provoked our revulsion, then try and find someone to blame who the reader is invited to hold responsible (usually has a political angle to it)

 

Spyder is also correct though in saying that if the people didn't fall for this lame reporting and lap it up, (and there's a whole genre of televsion shows that invite audiences to judge things ranging from deviant behavious of others, to sponge cakes) then we wouldn't have our media dominated thus. Sure, the people who consume this garbage are equally culpable

post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Break80 View Post
 

And don't get me started on "sources". Any reporter can literally say anything they want and attribute it to a source, and are under no obligation to ever name that source (assuming the reporting isn't libelous/slanderous).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

"an unnamed White House official," "an anonymous source inside the Senator's office," "a team official that asked not to be named,"  or, they just say **** it all to heck and go with "a credible source."

 

Says who???

 

I'm inclined to agree with you that non-attribution can lead to reckless reporting if the journalist lacks ethics.  But I'll counter that protection of sources is necessary in most cases when getting legitimate, important information from government and is privileged under the law in most states.  I'll further counter that some responsible, reputable journalists (Woodward comes to mind) are able to gain incredible access precisely because they offer absolute protection to their sources.

 

Doesn't it really come down to ethics?  I think journalists still want to investigate and fight for real news.  Nobody aspires to be completely full of shit.  The profit driven industry, and the manner in which news outlets have been consolidated, have resulted in corporate climates that directly compete with individual ethics.  The wrong things are being rewarded.

 

I would analogize it to the law firm fee scandals that were rampant in the 80s and 90s.  The ever-expanding law firm had a business model that required everyone to stack billable hours.  Whether you made partner was literally (and still is unfortunately) dependent on your ability to bill 2,000+ hours per year.  The result was institutionalized overbilling--with multiple instances of people routinely billing more than 24 hours in a single day.  No law student dreams of robbing people some day, but the incentive structure fed the culture.

post #26 of 26

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/don-t-just-stand-there--mike-moustakas-s-mental-error-at-plate-ends-game-162755304.html

 

There is a great example of the annoying, click-generating nonsense that you get online nowadays.  The implication of the headline on the front page - Team loses when player forgets unwritten rule - is that he cost his team the game.

 

Not until after you click do you realize that it's a complete non-story.  At the MLB level, the catcher makes that catch 99.5%** of the time when they aren't tripped by the batter so if the guy gets out of the way, he's still going to be out, and the games still going to be over.  And even for the 1 out of every 200** that he misses, its still a foul ball, and nothing positive or negaitve happens.

 

**I pulled those stats out of my butt.  Point is, they always make that play. :-P

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Media has changed, but Golf isn't as bad as other sports!