That might be something you see on Twitter. Instead, it’s what I did today right about the time that the Ichiro Suzuki DL announcement hit. I ate my avocado turkey sandwich in peace, but by the time I got back to the desk, the story had broken. I don’t mind not being first, but in this marketplace, it does matter. Yesterday, Twitter had the Jay Cutler to the Bears deal a full half hour before ESPN broke the story. 140 characters doesn’t require much editing or vetting.
Newspapers seem to be dying, but are websites? We live in an always-on, uber-connected, handheld society. Standing in a Murray Hill bar the other night with a group of four friends, one went to the restroom. The other three, myself included, immediately checked our iPhones and Blackberries. Is that healthy?
My pal C. Trent Rosecrans used to write for the Cincinnati Post as a beat writer. The Post went under and Trent moved over to the local sports radio station, doing a blog for them. Now, he’s posting from Twitter. Trent thinks outside the box - his pedometer story from the ‘07 Winter Meetings is one of my all time faves - but his career is a microcosm of sports right now. It’s the same work in different mediums, but what I wonder is … what happens to Trent? What if he wants to go see The Hold Steady when they’re in town? How many stories does he miss? Does @someotherguy break a story or build up some of the cyber-trust that might have been Trent’s?
On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog. That used to be the joke. Now, no one cares if you’re a dog. Anyone can blog, update their status, retweet a story, post a 12 second video, or try to be the next Kige Ramsey. We’ve democratized the tools of writing and reporting while forgetting that the quality of the writer often depends on that writer’s quality of life. Tim Dierkes at MLB Trade Rumors is on to something, rotating writers to keep a 24/7 view on his beat, but that’s a lot of trust he’s putting in the people.
Can we do that on Twitter, or whatever comes next? Do we have to have everything right now, or would we be better served to step back, take a breath, watch an episode of Dollhouse, and then write? I think so. I’m not going to be first on some stories and I’m going to stay away from the rumor mills. I’m just going to try to be the best at what I do … on my pace.
There's a difference between "stories" and "news." "News" can be served well in 140 words--they're modeled after headlines, after all. "Stories" do take more time, and when they're good, they're worth the time it takes to read them.
Both are important; let's not confuse the roles of either though.
I don't think this is true btw: "On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog. That used to be the joke. Now, no one cares if you’re a dog. Anyone can blog, update their status, retweet a story, post a 12 second video, or try to be the next Kige Ramsey."
Sure, anyone can blog, but that doesn't mean people will notice them or listen to them. Authority still exists on the internet...
I don't know, there's very few things I need to know this instant. Maybe I'm just not into the whole Twitter thing. But if I got to whatever website and see Ichiro will be on the DL, I'm okay not getting that news in the first hour it breaks. Unless my house is exploding, I can wait.
I'll add my geezer vote to yours. I couldn't care less who broke a story first, or that someone else was 47 whole minutes behind them. I choose my news sources by reliability and depth of analysis, not by promptness. For the stories where minutes really count, I'm dead already.
I'm here to agree as well. I'm curious as to how BPers feel about blogs like mlbtraderumors.com. Personally, I don't care, and usually get irritated when people reference sites like that. Let me know when it actually happens, not when an anonymous source says teams are talking to create smoke and mirrors.
I bet you'll find that your readers are here for your analysis and your style in delivering it far more than for your speed to news. We have many many other options for that.
We don't necessarily demand that you know first that the Mariners stuck Ichiro on the DL. But we do hope that you interpret for us what the announcement means. Is this something that is going to linger? Is it hiding something worse? Is it to be ignored?
Twitter "gurus" may believe they have discovered something new, but it's just something faster. And a permanently speeding news cycle is nothing new.
The casualties along the way have always been accuracy, attention span and sheer quality of prose. The benefits have been widening access and reach.
It's the modern journalist's job to grab each side of these cliffs and span the divide with a mixture of both.
I'm one reader and subscriber that votes you stay focused on quality. This is why I am a reader and subscriber.
I only check BP once a day and read whatever is new since the last time I checked. So i'm not too worried about speed as long as the analysis is good (which it pretty much always is here)and within a day or two of the story first breaking elsewhere.
is the idea of "breaking" a story more important inside the industry than outside?
It seems, though, that a website would gain potential ad revenue when traffic goes to their site upon breaking news. if people want the story (as is correctly pointed out above by themcneills) behind the news. So, twitter might help sites and maybe the reputation of reporters who tweet (ick). unless twitter can figure out a way to make money or to make people money, then i don't see a way that twitter does anything to significantly weaken sites that can carry stories.
I can see what Will is saying. In this environment of 140-character attention spans, if a news feed breaks a story an hour after someone else, it can feel like an eternity. If you think otherwise, there have been times where I have drafted a player in fantasy baseball just to see them go on the DL by the end of the draft.
On the other hand, I don't bemoan it. There will always be people who rush to get the story and rush to disburse it. There will also be people who leap to judgment and analyze before all the information is in. Then there are people who will take their time before writing. I think there is a place for all kinds of bloggers, and of course, each person will have their favorite ones.
In the absence of intelligent, riveting analysis, people only need to learn the bare basics of the news and fill the rest in themselves. The success of Twitter is a shot against the bow of AP style and mainstream media stories/analysis.
"I’m not going to be first on some stories and I’m going to stay away from the rumor mills. I’m just going to try to be the best at what I do … on my pace."
Was this your same policy when you irresponsibly "broke" the Pete Rose news several years ago? [Note that your report was not even a blog entry; it was a formal, look-at-me news story]. I totally agree with what you say in this post, but I do not think you have followed your own philosophy in the past.
Philosophies can change. While I won't put words in Will's mouth, it does seem like his opinions on this topic have evolved a great deal in the last few years... maybe partly as a result of the Pete Rose story?
The logical progression of this isn't writers missing the big breaking scoop, it's writers being cut out of the loop entirely with tweets (or whatever is next) coming directly from the team or the athletes themselves.
Also, I don't think the world will ever be ready for the "next Kige Ramsey."
I really really appreciate Will's (and Dr. Dave's) perspective on this. Speed kills. Getting the story 1) right and 2) in some depth is ultimately more important. Real journalism is not a matter of "first"; it's a matter of right plus context.
for the crackheads addicted to the latest instant gratificaiton, twitter is great. for those that like to think, analysis (good and bad) is where the future is at. the money is also in the analysis because those that think are usually willing to plunk more money down for a good product with great analysis, especially when it may offer a opposing but valuable view.
Being first doesn't matter on the internet--the only people who care are the writers. Now, thirty seconds after somebody has something everybody has it, and it just comes down to to who is better to read.
I view writers worrying about this the same way I view writers complaining that "ANYBODY can post ANYTHING on the internet!" Everybody posts everything, which means, believe it or not, that quality will out every time. It might not be the kind of quality that newspapermen have decided is objectively better, but then again we're talking about people who've counted on having a local monopoly for the last hundred years. What's more competitive--drawing eyeballs away from every other site on the planet, or beating the one other paper in your town?
There's a book(audio) I had for one of my MBA courses that applies to this and beyond. It's called 'The Long Tail' I recommend it to anyone that is interested in business and statistics.
Basically, think of a distribution chart with a curve that levels out seemingly forever after the first 20% of a particular data set. The remaining 80% individually is so small yet so great in the big picture because that 80% is driving the greater whole of the industry. Think iTunes where 80% of revenue comes from non-hits....News is probably close to this if not there and Will's piece here is probably evidence of that.
Hi Will, I'm in my '40s, I don't twitter and I refuse to buy a blackberry or anything similar. My wife insisted I get a cell phone after 9/11, but it's a very basic device. My thumbs are way too big to text. My point: I'm not the best representative of the up and coming generation that's into instant communication. However, I can tell you this from my own perspective, I've gotten away from the need to be connected all of the time. It's the path to madness as far as I'm concerned. I can also say from my own opinion that trust is built over time and is based on the validity of the information that's deceminated. As an example, I go to BP for much of my baseball information because, over time, I've seen the validity of the information that's available. Better than what I get on ESPN and the insights are often more relevant than what I get from my other online love, the NY Times. I could go on much longer, but it's a nice day and I'd rather be outside enjoying it.
Not to worry. We're simply transitioning to a time when we will learn to differentiate between the "what" and the "why". In a world with too much information, knowledge will continue to have value.
I agree with Raton. Information is little more than a soundbite, knowledge is conceptualizing the ramifications of the info and knowing how to turn it into a tool. (That's my thought, anyhow!)
The reason sabermetrics is so wonderful is because there is so much knowledge. I don't come to BP or Fangraphs for trade gossip and news hysterics (although, in truth....the sabermetrics community seems to be devolving into that quite a bit), I come here for disciplined though and analysis of the game of baseball.
ESPN is People Magazine for "men" (and this does NOT exclude Neyer in the least). True sabermetrics, on the other hand, is like a fun science class that you remember fondly for years.
The talking-head, soundbite mainstream media - 99.99% of which is actually nothing more than the cult or personality cloaked in the guise of news - is, in my opinion, a willfully destructive force to civilization. Not to get political, but the last eight years has been dominated by a political force who said, literally, "Reality is what we say it is", and they've been wildly abetted by the inane lust for "news" and "gossip".
Just focus on research and analysis, try to prove yourself wrong, and think creatively....and my $40 will have been well spent. I don't need stupid injury hype and lame trade gossip.
I'll tell you one thing that has been lost with the demise of newspapers -- facility with the language in print. Good editors don't let trite cliches like "thinking outside the box" see the light of day, particularly trite cliches that mean "the kind of thinking that would never produce trite cliches."
Newspaper editors also don't allow mention of "mediums" when discussing "media." "Mediums" are people who see dead relatives, or shirts that are neither smalls nor larges.
I dearly love BP, but wish you all were more careful with your writing. By accepting the degradation of English, you are contributing to it.
What's so bad about the phrase 'thinking outside the box'? It's a string of words that communicates a common idea swiftly to the reader--the end goal of writing, for most people. Cliched or not, it is effective. Would you rather a baseball writer spend their time searching out more elegant ways of saying the same thing, or developing the information content of the story? I come to BP for information and analysis about baseball, not some strained attempt at being the next James Joyce.
Besides, thinking outside the box isn't necessarily "the kind of thinking that would never produce trite cliches" if newspapers--which in regard to media often serve as the 'box'--wouldn't print the (often accurate!) cliches. Also, there's nothing ironic or hypocritical in writing *about* outside-the-box thinking in an ordinary, cliched manner. You don't have to be what you describe! You just have to describe it.
As long as the writing is understandable and the ideas are fresh, I'm happy with BP's editorial staff. Keep up the good work!
We're dealing with the exact same issues here at Not For Tourists, Will. I just sent your post around to everyone here--very tough to try and differentiate between curated content (us) and everyone else with an opinion. Trust me, I want curated content from BP; if in the end, we're in a small minority and we have to go teach high school history because our businesses collapse, so be it...
There's plenty of room in the world for both news and analysis. Something like Twitter is just new way of doing a news ticker. Just the headlines, nothing in-depth. You read the columns to get opinions on what the news means. Theformat is the same, it's just the media that has changed.
Also, I for one love to get news as fast as possible. I saw the latest issue of Sports Illistrated at the supermarket this weekend and the cover story was about the Sweet Sixteen. I turned to my girlfriend and said "this is why printed media is going to die." The cover of that magazine did nothing to entice me to buy it, because I already had heard all the news they had to offer.
44 comments have been left for this post.
There's a difference between "stories" and "news." "News" can be served well in 140 words--they're modeled after headlines, after all. "Stories" do take more time, and when they're good, they're worth the time it takes to read them.
Both are important; let's not confuse the roles of either though.