The newspaper industry was without doubt one of the slowest to react to the dawn of the digital age. While some have now caught up and have a business model that not only works and is bringing in money, many others are still floundering and struggling to keep pace in the modern world.
What is sad is what the consumer is missing out on in a sporting sense.
When newspapers started to go online there were many who would simply give a three paragraph match report and would not even tell you which players had played in the match. All you knew was who won and who scored. There was not even a description as to how a try or a goal or a boundary was scored.
It is that descriptive writing that has been abandoned, and one wonders if that is why so many newspapers are struggling to sell copies or attract subscriptions online. Of course one other problem that they face is that there are now so many other outlets from which you can glean that information. The newspaper is no longer the “go-to” source.
The discerning sports fan, and lets face it the true sports fans of the modern era are far better informed than many of yesteryear, know where to go for their information, information that is reliable and gives them what they want to know. Many are well aware that a club website is often a complete waste of time as they have become nothing more than a soapbox for propaganda. The poor clubs frequently have stories incorporating quotes from the CEO or the owner, failing to realise that fans only want to hear from them when the team is not performing and the coach is sacked or a new one appointed. These clubs suffer due to the inflated egos of their off-field staff, and as they try to steal the limelight ahead of the players, the real stars, the traffic to their websites diminishes.
Running a newspaper is not a cheap affair. Regrettably many established newspapers across the globe have run into difficulty as they have failed to adapt to the changes of the modern era. Many have not planned a way forward with a solid business model. One of the biggest mistakes many have made is to make redundant their older experienced writers for cheaper fresh out of university types. As a result the quality of what goes to print has immediately been compromised.
A case in point is a match report where the score is given, the scorers mentioned, then the rest of the report is made up of quotes from either coach; or in the really bad news outlets a serious of quotes from Twitter! For people who were not at the game this is not going to satiate their appetite, if they are interested in a team or a sport. They want more detail, they want to know how the teams played.
A new problem that has arisen is that many local newspapers have found that they can no longer criticise the local team. If they do they face being barred from the game, or not allowed to ask questions at a press conference as happened recently in the UK. In another instant one journalist was told that they would pay him to write positive stories! This is happening more and more, this writer was asked to sign a contract by one sport whereby he was not allowed to write anything deemed by others as negative, even if it was the truth, about “any of its officers or employees, a National Association, Team or Athlete. This obligation shall continue for a period of 12 months following termination or expiry of this Agreement.” What happened to freedom of the press? Surely this is restraint of trade? For the record the offer of work was taken away when the request for this clause to be altered was made and a new contract has never been presented.
This censorship is not just happening in sport. In India just last month it was announced that the government’s is looking to move to regulate digital news and social media “monitoring negative social influencers.”
With this type of censorship, you have to ask who is the judge as to whether a story is negative or not? If someone has done something wrong, or made a decision that has cost the club, the sport or a player success then surely they must accept that they will be criticised? We are not advocating abuse, but constructive criticism. If you cannot handle the the plaudits as well as the brickbats then maybe you should not hold such a position, where your decisions and performance in a role are going to be judged.
So suddenly the media find themselves in a difficult position. Criticise and they will be banned. Poor reporting and reporting propaganda means low readership. How do they cope?
We have seen in Australia a real trend now that the cross media laws were loosened television stations, radio stations and newspapers all being owned by the same company. A very dangerous situation to allow. As a result of this change in legislation we have seen newspaper journalists becoming reporters on radio and on television. We see television presenters writing columns or becoming the go-to experts. Some deserve the ‘expert’ tag. Some are far from ‘expert.’ Some are very good at crossing over from one medium to another, others are simply awful. There is usually a reason why a journalist opts for one form of media, but clearly the management in some cases are unaware of the fact that some of these crossovers do not work, and in fact cause more harm to their brand than good. But do they really care about quality? Is it not more about cost. But having these crossovers they do not have to pay someone else.
Or is it more about promotion? Promoting the newspaper on television in the hope that it will sell more copies?
What is sad is seeing how this has affected some working in this space. Their egos have taken over. They have forgotten why they started working in this environment in the first place.
In many cases the plan was to consolidate staff and have them move between the various businesses. Traditionally there has always been a competition between the various media forms, and as a result there is still the urge to trump each other even if they work for the same master. There is also a snobbery within the media as to which form is superior to the other; something not to be discussed here. So is it any wonder that few of these crossovers have been successful in terms or growing viewership, readership, or circulation?
You would think that having a finger in so many pies the media outlets would have the upper hand, and if threatened would simply say ‘bring it on,’ as most sports organisations need the media more than the media needs them. Only die hard fans notice if there is nothing about their sport on air or in print. Media outlets, or at least many where one sport is their bread and butter like football in England and AFL in Australia, simply could not care less.
What is interesting is how many of the newspapers are now looking to move into streaming live sport. What is their motivation? Is it to promote the sport? Is it give these sports a platform to showcase their sport? No, it is all about driving subscriptions and trying to grow their dwindling audience. Are these media outlets sharing the data from their live streams? Or is that their information? How many sports are asking for that information? How many have sold their most valuable asset, their data base for a few column centimetres and a big colour picture in the paper?
It is questionable whether putting these sports behind a paywall is going to benefit them. Of course it would if the money went back to the sport, or was invested directly into junior development. Yet in many cases these agreements see the newspaper carry the cost of the stream and keep all of the subscriptions that they generate and the data. In return the sport gets coverage in the paper. Coverage that they should probably been getting anyway if the sports desk was being run properly.
Yet this is the problem, the staff on the sports desk have been cut. Those talented writers that remain are no longer allowed to go out and source stories, they are usually only allowed to leave their desk for a press conference. Most of which are a complete waste of time these days, as players have been media-briefed as to the messaging the club wants, as has the coach. Only those coaches confident in themselves and their job will go off script.
The sports desk on many newspapers now no longer sends reporters to games. They watch the game on television and file a report based on what everyone has just seen. If you are not a mainstream sport you are advised to send in your stories for consideration for publication! What is this a school magazine?
The sad thing is this situation is compounded by the sports and the clubs themselves who see match reports as a form or marketing and promotion. They hype up every game as being ‘exciting’ and ‘outstanding’ and see this as a way of pulling in fans. Yet fans see through this mist of deception. They know that not every game is exciting. That sometimes teams “win ugly.” Trying to hype each game up means that when a truly magnificent performance happens you have no where to go, it is a similar predicament to the boy who cried wolf.
Having looked up the definition of a newspaper, it does not matter which definition you find all state that it is a printed product that contains “news, articles of opinion, features, and advertising.” Only a few of the definitions add that these are published on a website as well as a newspaper. None mention all the peripheral stuff that the modern papers are diversifying into in order to win readers. Remember the further you move away from your core business, the more trouble you will end up in.
What is sad is the decline of good newspapers. The decline in the quality writing that made them an essential part of our lives. Growing up in England, the County Cricket reports would cover a whole page of a broadsheet newspaper and each report would be a description of the days events, a majestic innings or a wily spell of bowling on a turning wicket. So wonderful was the writing that you developed a love of some of the journalists turn of phrase. Even in the football season the match reports were colourful and descriptive helping you visualise the match-winning goal. There was a time when people bought certain papers on a Sunday purely for their sports coverage. The now defunct News of the World was at one time regarded to have the best football coverage of the Sunday newspapers; the rest of the paper wan’t worth reading!
Apart from the lack of quality in much of the coverage, maybe the big issue in Australia is that there is little or no competition. Maybe like in sport our newspapers need an opposing paper to compete against in order to lift their own performance, and battle over readers online or in print based on quality writing and reporting. It certainly doesn’t help having both papers in one city owned by the same company.
One wonders whether the newspapers will ever spawn the great sports writers of days gone by. Certainly judging by what the majority churn out there are no Jack Fingletons or John Arlotts currently waiting to emerge. Sad days indeed.
