BrianManzullo.com

Turning to the public for journalism? Well, they did it in baseball

The inspiration for this blog post came from an idle Tuesday night in the basement of my childhood home in Saginaw, Mich.

I’m watching the MLB Network (one of my new favorite channels) at around 2:30 a.m., trying to rework my biological clock to stay up until 5 a.m. since I’ll be working until that time in Arizona. During a commercial, an interesting short feature came on, focusing on a baseball game unlike any other that occurred 59 years ago Tuesday.

Bill Veeck, an ambitious owner of a St. Louis Browns ballclub that was dead last in the American League at 38-81 that year, decided to give fans control of all managerial decisions during a game against the Philadelphia Athletics (49-75):

A day before, Veeck held a contest in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat that would allow fans to vote on the Browns’ starting line-up. Everyone who mailed in their ballot would in return be given a ticket to the Browns-Athletics game; where they would be seated in a special section behind the Browns dugout. Veeck’s plan was for everyone seated in that particular spot in the bleachers, called the Grandstand Managers Section, to vote on what plays the Browns should do next.

Veeck took the concept further by electing two fans to be the first- and third-base coaches for the game, although they had to sit in a box beside the dugout, near manager Zach Taylor, who took in the sights on his night off from decision-making. This was armchair managing taken to a whole new level for the fans.

How did the system work? For each situation that called on the fans for help (the first one didn’t come until the Browns were down 3-0), a public relations employee would hold up a sign, asking the fans what the team should do in that particular situation. Each fan in the section had a sign with “Yes” on one side, “No” on the other, and would hold the sign up with their vote in front. The employee would then relay the call to Taylor, who then relayed the call to his players.

Was it successful? The first question posed was whether to bring the infield in or keep it in double-play position with men on first and third and one out in the top of the first inning. The fans voted to keep the team in double-play position. The result? A double play to end the inning. In fact, the only mistake the fans made was in the bottom half of that inning, with the game tied 3-3. They voted for the man on first to steal second with two outs, and he was caught to end the inning. (Read more about the Grandstand Managers Day)

The St. Louis Browns, who finished the season 52-102, won the game 5-3. They were 1-0 when the fans managed the team.

The idea was duplicated, in fact, on a much grander scale in 2006, when the Schaumburg Flyers, an independent ballclub in Schaumburg, Ill., turned over managerial controls to the fans for the entire second half of the season. This project, partnered with MSN, was dubbed Fan Club: Reality Baseball, and was chronicled over the period of 48 games. These fans had more control than those of the ‘51 Browns: They also had control of front-office moves such as trades. The result? Not as good. The Flyers, who finished the first half 31-17, went 15-33 under the fans’ control.

Translating grandstand managing to grandstand journalism

It doesn’t surprise me that this idea hasn’t been duplicated in any form in the major leagues again. In today’s age of magnified media scrutiny and multimillion-dollar contracts, a concept as outlandish as grandstand managing for what is essentially a true spectator event would spark major controversy, even if both teams involved were out of the playoff race.

But what about journalism?

Okay, this is by no means a new discussion. Many delegate the concept as “citizen journalism,” a term I loathe because of its misleading, stereotypical connotation. It is simply the idea of getting the public more involved in the news-gathering process. Many times, it has nothing to do with writing stories or shooting photos. And despite the efforts of startups such as Spot.Us, news companies in general aren’t doing enough to bring the community’s input into the equation.

What if newspapers routinely asked community members for story ideas? What if, before a reporter begins talking to sources for a story, an effort is made to reach out to community members via social media and inquire about what questions they want asked? What if readers were consulted on ideas and suggestions for the direction of a story? What if they could provide ideas on sources to talk to? What if they were given the opportunity to “complete” a story, a la TBD.com (see photo), via tidbits, photos and news tips?

This concept of “grandstand journalism” was unheard of around, say, the time of the St. Louis Browns. Not because the public didn’t want to be involved — but because they couldn’t. Technology and social media have changed that. It’s no longer as outlandish as it is with baseball now. People can reach out to the media easier than ever. They have a forum. They have a voice. And news organizations need to listen and at least take that into account — or a competitor will.

There are core concepts of journalism that may never change — those so far engrained into the industry’s roots, they will stay there until the end of time. But if a true spectator event such as baseball can break out of the traditional mold, even if it was only temporary, guess what? So can journalism.

I’ll end this entry with a video I linked to a few months ago, but deserves a repeat appearance given the topic. Jeff Jarvis, at TEDxNYED last March, on why “this is bullsh*t”:

Continue reading...

With LeBron James’ ESPN special, the line between sports journalism and sensationalism continues to blur (UPDATED)

An interesting development took place while I was at work Tuesday night — although not all that surprising.

A story broke on ESPN regarding NBA superstar LeBron James’ next move, which has been the big summer sports story outside of the World Cup. He plans to make his decision Thursday night. But, being LeBron, he wants to do it with the cameras on him and everybody watching a one-hour special starting at 9 p.m. on — you guessed it — ESPN. All the network had planned that Thursday night was “World Cup Premiere.”

Before I get into the ethical bag of snakes ESPN jumped into with this story, it’s important to note just how big of a circus this NBA free agency period has become. This annual routine is dominating the airwaves and television screens this year. Every day, we’re hearing about and watching what James and other free agents such as Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh are up to, whether they’re participating in kids camps or meeting with other players. Normally, these acts wouldn’t warrant publicity. But we invade their daily lives because everyone wants to know: Where are these guys going to play basketball? Journalists huddle up and ask these questions at these camps and other places like they’re going to get the answers they’d like to hear. (They won’t. These athletes will do it their way.)

Is all this hoopla for good reason? Sure — people want to hear about it. But this LeBron “special” goes to show how sensationalized (some) sports journalism has become. And ESPN is to blame for a lot of it.

Look — on one hand, I like ESPN. I do watch it on occasion, particularly SportsCenter, Baseball Tonight and Pardon the Interruption. The coverage is good, although the analysis goes overboard a lot (no, Joe Theismann, you don’t know what the players and coaches on the football field are thinking right now). Its reporters work constantly and have deep connections, usually breaking stories before local competitors. It has its own pointless awards ceremony. The Web presentation is top-notch, too — there are videos galore, aggregated stories and a deep, organized database of statistics and standings. You know, things many newspapers sports sections should be doing online, but aren’t.

But then there’s the other hand. ESPN dominates the sports journalism world, partially by partaking in shady journalistic tactics. It breaks the big story first by constantly allowing sources to be anonymous, a practice scorned upon in most cases (and for good reason) at many newspapers. Remember college football analyst Kirk Herbstreit’s report on LSU coach Les Miles heading to Michigan in 2007? His top-secret and supposedly reliable “sources” were wrong. Most news outlets would take a hit in credibility but, with how large of a brand ESPN was and still is, there was little risk involved.

Even if a story breaks in the Kansas City Star dealing with the Chiefs, you can bet ESPN will report it. And even if they attribute credit (which they sometimes do), they get the clicks. They get the attention, or at least most of it. They have the trusted “experts” that analyze the story and the big picture. And every story they report or speculate on builds their brand a little bit more with the millions that follow the network. As of late, ESPN is spreading its coverage by city, reaching five thus far: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Boston. This local approach is targeting newspapers such as the Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune directly — and probably winning.

I have always thought ESPN’s goal of a sports coverage monopoly has overall deteriorated the quality of said coverage. There’s no transparency. There’s little accountability. It needs competition to stay on its toes. But not only has ESPN stomped the competition in reporting sports news (partially by guaranteeing anonymity to those who give the scoop), they also have locked-in deals with NBA, NFL and MLB to air their games. That makes its reporting even more ethically dubious. For example, wouldn’t it be in ESPN’s best interest to report a story that could ramp up the anticipation for the next Monday Night Football game and drive in higher ratings? Wouldn’t it be great to fish for bulletin-board material from a player prior to an NBA Finals game, then sensationalize it just to add to the excitement?

(For the record, I’m not accusing any specific ESPN reporters of doing any of this. But there is an obvious conflict of interest that can’t be ignored. This may not be as sensitive as government reporting, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hold sports writing to the same journalistic standard.)

This brings me back to Thursday’s LeBron “special.” Apparently, LeBron’s camp wants to sell the sponsorship for the big event, with proceeds going toward the Boys and Girls Club of America. So that makes the announcement a little less sleazy. But think about this glaring issue: What if an ESPN reporter finds out, from a very reliable source, where LeBron is going prior to 9 p.m. Thursday night? Wouldn’t it be in their best interest to censor that scoop to ramp up ratings for Thursday night — or report it in fear of having it broken by another news source and rendering the special useless?

Not only is ESPN feeding the beast that is LeBron’s ego (and, yet again, catering to big-name athletes), it is putting itself in what could potentially be a disastrous situation that, in my opinion, breaks the journalistic code of ethics. All for television ratings, branding and advertising. But you know what? ESPN will get away with that. The line between quality sports journalism and entertainment has blurred for this company — and, in my view, we’re all paying for it.

UPDATE: JULY 12, 2010

Just a quick take on Thursday’s program, which I was able to watch at the Press:

“The Decision” was just about what I expected it to be. I didn’t expect LeBron’s actual decision to come within the first 10-15 minutes like ESPN said it would (It actually took roughly 27). I didn’t expect Jim Gray to ask any tough questions prior to the big one (”Are you still a nailbiter?” was a favorite cupcake of mine). I fully expected to feel like I just wasted 60 minutes of my life watching something that makes reality television look valuable (I was at work, it was on TV and, let’s face it, it was still the sports news of the night). Like Mitch Albom, I found it particularly interesting that there were children on hand to watch, as if this one-hour special was going to be something for them to remember for a long time.

Maybe I’m just somebody whose BS detector is fine-tuned after five years of journalism school, but I definitely heard ringing. From LeBron and from ESPN. Or, as Buzz Bissinger call it, “BSPN.”

Hopefully I’m not coming off as too much of a pessimist. There was some good that came out of this whole ordeal. I particularly loved the reporting of the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Brian Windhorst. While analysts around the county spouted off with speculation on what LeBron was thinking, Windhorst was doing the legwork. He caught the scoop from the teams’ visits, kept up on the latest using Twitter and — my favorite part — pieced the saga together following LeBron’s departure. Journalism at its finest always answers “Why?” Windhorst did that. And it’s not over yet.

Here are other reads related to ESPN’s “Decision” special:

• Richard Deitsch (Sports Illustrated) said he “gained a new respect for TV’s Amish in the City and Temptation Island” after watching the special.
• An advertising campaign that starts this week for ESPN has nothing to do with the Decision, The New York Times reports.
• LeBron’s big decision was “must-flee TV,” Arizona Republic’s Paola Boivin says.
• Something interesting to point out: ESPN’s Ombudsman, Don Ohlmeyer, has not yet written about The Decision, although that could change this week. We’ll see.

Continue reading...

Newspapers need to set their sports coverage apart and make it better than anyone else’s – even ESPN

I don’t write too much about sports journalism. But reading McGuire on Media’s blog post on ESPN.com and newspapers got me thinking.

ESPN, the mecca of sports media, is expanding its movement to go local with sports coverage. It started with ESPN Chicago, and now it’s expanding to ESPN Boston and ESPN Dallas/Forth Worth. Pretty soon, ESPN is going to expand to all the bigger markets in the United States and maybe even Canada, and these sites are now directly competing with the sports media markets in those cities (i.e. Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe).

For newspapers, this is a serious challenge. In terms of branding, you can’t compete with ESPN. Very few national sports outlets can compete with it. Sports Illustrated still gets by with insanely compelling cover stories and big-name writers (Peter King, Dr. Z, Tom Verducci, etc.). Other than that, it’s ESPN and the little guys, many of which are newspaper sports sections in their respective communities.

This presents problems, I think, when there’s practically a monopoly in the sports media world (esp. with ESPN broadcasting Monday Night Football and how its ratings may play a role in how the network covers NFL stories). But that’s a topic for another day.

McGuire makes an excellent point. Sports, in general, are underappreciated at newspapers, and their sections are way too difficult to navigate on the Web. Navigate the Boston Globe sports site and then go to ESPN Boston. The difference in navigation is staggering. Right now, one of the only things the Globe has to its advantage is hyperlocal coverage (prep sports, mostly), but that market is too small to give newspapers real value over ESPN. Newspapers have to revamp how they cover sports and how they present it, particularly online.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has its own idea: It set a pay wall for “premium” Minnesota Vikings coverage at $19.95 a year and $5.95 for three months. Affordable? Yes. A good idea? Not so sure. I like how the site is set up with its own niche and brand (Access Vikings), but is losing a great crowd of readers on the fence worth making some extra pennies?

As McGuire outlines, 10,000 yearly subscribers would net the Star Tribune $200,000, probably 1 percent of its payroll, at best. Other sites offer adequate Vikings coverage for free, and that is good enough for quite a few sports fans. The value has to be there if you want the majority of your readers to fork money over.

So how do you fight by far the biggest brand in sports media (ESPN)?

I believe the solution is not in putting up pay walls, even for niche coverage. I believe the solution is in branding your coverage and making it better than anyone else’s. As digital as journalism is getting, the old motto “Content is king” still stands. I believe the solution is in putting exclusive value in your content, getting more than the typical game previews and recaps and — this one’s important — building a loyal community of readers.

Access Vikings has the right idea, I think, in terms of branding its coverage separate from the rest of the Star Tribune. The Detroit Free Press, a local favorite of mine, meanwhile, gets the kind of hard-hitting content you don’t find in many places (see their coverage of Tigers 1B Miguel Cabrera’s domestic dispute).

Combine the two elements together and, in my opinion, you have a heck of a start for compelling sports coverage. And I think it’s critical for newspapers if they are to survive these days.

Continue reading...

Lights, camera, practice: A Final Four trip to remember

When you are a fledgling journalist, you don’t get many chances like these.

I knew this three months ago, walking into Ford Field in Detroit, Mich., for the fourth time in two years. All three previous trips were for CMU football games as a beat writer, including two Motor City Bowls. This trip was similar in one sense. I carried a press pass and a bag of a journalist’s favorite tools (camera, notepad, voice recorder and pen, among other things), fully dressed with a tie on, like I did before, as I walked through security into the stadium.

While Ford Field mostly is known for hosting Detroit Lions games, the Mid-American Conference Championship game and the Motor City Bowl, this was April – well outside football season. Ford Field instead was gearing up for Final Four basketball. It was Friday, practice day for the four teams, all open to the public, and the main floor, normally carpeted with turf, was overlaid with chairs, press tables and – you guessed it – a basketball court. (See above.)

My purpose at this event was simple: To write a scholarship story. I was e-mailed two weeks earlier by Tom Stanton, an assistant journalism professor at the University of Detroit Mercy, with an invitation to attend a United States Basketball Writers’ Association (USBWA) seminar with some of the top basketball writers in the country. This included a chance to be assigned to one event during the Final Four weekend and to write a story in a $1,000 scholarship competition.

The previous day’s workshop was a blast. I went with a couple of my coworkers at Central Michigan Life to the University of Detroit Mercy, where we got to meet sports journalists such as Boston Globe writer Bob Ryan, Washington Post columnist John Feinstein, Dana O’Neil of ESPN.com and Steve Carp of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. All of them were extremely nice in providing sportswriting tips and answering questions for about 100-150 students in attendance.

The following day, I found myself at Ford Field working alongside some of these writers. It was like I was living a career dream. That was enough motivation to get to work.

(NOTE: In between all of this, I managed to shoot photos and take audio to create a nice, quick Soundslides presentation on a 3-on-3 U.S. wheelchair basketball game. You can view it here.)

First, I had to come up with a storyline. What was I going to write about? At first, I wanted to deviate from doing a story on Michigan State because of its predictability. I wanted to uncover something deeper. But there was a particular moment right before the Spartans began their practice (teams practiced in 50-minute allotments and MSU was first) which shined for me.

I was standing courtside, next to MSU’s entrance ramp, when the team began its march into the Ford Field lights. The crowd absolutely roared. A good 20,000 people, 95 percent of which were State fans, where cheering during the introduction. The band was playing, the jumbotron was going and the cheerleaders were jumping. It was quite a sight – for a practice!

I immediately had a lede in mind, wrote it down and went the entire 50-minute practice from there, recording everything I heard and saw. I also got a chance to play photographer for 10 minutes, sitting courtside and getting nice shots of players running their drills. Now all I needed to do was get player reactions to the rather unusual practice atmosphere.

As I walked toward the locker rooms, I caught sight of John Feinstein. I talked with him briefly the day earlier about my sportswriting experiences, particularly as CMU’s football writer. I walked up to him to say hi and if he had any words of wisdom for my interviews. I gave him the early idea for my story.

“Talk to the little guys,” he said. “Don’t talk to any star players. Get the guys no one is talking to.”

Perfect advice.

While everybody and their mother is hearing about Kalin Lucas and Goran Suton and their thoughts on the Final Four trip home, there are other players on the team who, for one, wouldn’t mind some media attention. They’re in the tournament semifinals just like Lucas and Suton. And they can be a quote gold mine if you give them the time to talk.

I memorized several player numbers while waiting outside the locker room, writing down interview possibilities. When the media poured in, I stood back for a minute or two to let everyone settle in.

Once I walked in, I looked for players sitting down, talking either to one media member or none at all. I started with center Idong Ibok. Then Austin Thornton. Then Korie Lucious. None of these players averaged more than 10 minutes per game, and all of them had quite a bit to say about their early experience.

“We’ve had many games with less people than that … it was unbelievable,” Ibok said. Golden.

“I kept catching myself looking up at the stands and thinking, ‘Wow, we are at a practice right now, and we have, like, 15,000 people here watching us,’” Thornton said. Even more golden.

Once interviews were done, I put away my voice recorder and notepad and headed back to courtside to catch Connecticut practice. Like I said in this entry’s intro, you don’t get many chances like these. I had an opportunity to watch great college basketball teams practice!

I also went to the Final Four media room (pictured below) to find other familiar faces. I found Bob Ryan writing a story, so I dropped by to talk to him for a few minutes. I was gracious of his time because Globe writers, especially those as renowned as Ryan, surely are busy people. I made sure to grab a bite to eat, too – within all the Final Four hoopla, I forgot my stomach was growling.

I went down to courtside, once more, to watch the final practice: The eventual Final Four champion North Carolina, complete with Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson and coach Roy Williams. It was another one of those moments where I fell in love with what I did for a living. I could get used to this for a long, long time, I thought. It reminded me of when I began covering CMU football.

I left about 10 minutes early to beat traffic and make my way to Columbus, Ohio, where the Society of Professional Journalists Region 4 conference was held. Following that small trip, I sat down at my desk in Mount Pleasant, Mich., surrounded by media guides and releases, and began writing my story.

I treated it like anything I would write for a professional publication. I fact-checked, proofread, verified and clarified every sentence I wrote. I re-read my story at least 50 times. Once I was done, I handed it to a few of my colleagues and my adviser for proofreading. They gave me minor things to fix and clean up.

In the end, here was what I came up with.

A couple weeks passed. I didn’t think too much about the scholarship. There were at least several dozen other college and high school writers in the competition. While my chances were low, I had an amazing experience nonetheless.

I was in the Life office on a Sunday, working on adding widgets to the Life Web site, when I received another e-mail from Tom Stanton.

“It was a tough decision — with many strong entries — but the judges have selected a winner in the Final Four sportswriting scholarship competition: Brian Manzullo of Central Michigan University.

Continue reading...