The trend in many of the major sports lately is for the leagues themselves to provide original reporting content on their websites, and many times provide breaking news before any of the traditional outlets.
MLB.com, along with all of the individual clubs' websites, have their own paid writers who cover the teams. In every story, after the reporter's information comes a disclaimer stating, "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." Now, I don't exactly know the logistics of these reporters covering the teams versus other independent media outlets' coverage, but this situation brings up a few questions in my mind...
Aren't journalists supposed to be completely separated from the institutions they're covering?
Do league-paid reporters get different access to the teams and players than non-league individuals?
How would coverage of a typical public relations nightmare (e.g. - a player getting a DUI) compare with independent sources' coverage?
If, for example in the story of the day after Carlos Zambrano's no-hitter, he had said he partied the whole night and done all sorts of reckless things to celebrate, how would that be portrayed?
Does it not at least hint at a conflict of interest for a reporter to be paid by the league he or she is covering, if not outright scream it?
If nothing else, if truly objective reporting is taking place, then it's in the wrong setting. I understand the leagues' desire to increase website traffic, but I have doubts about the legitimacy of these sites becoming real news providers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Definitely a conflict of interest. And then the MLB (and NFL and most of the other pro leagues) put such heinous restrictions on newspapers and websites, we can't report the sports news. We have to take video off our site within 12 hours. Etc Etc.
Of course, it could all backfire if any of us ever decided that sports is not news, anyway -- it's entertainment, and enough of the free advertising.
Post a Comment