BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: The Detroit Tiger Weblog: Newsflash: Reporter hates bloggers

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, November 04, 2007

The Detroit Tiger Weblog: Newsflash: Reporter hates bloggers

100 CC’s (Pure Thrust)! Billfer, on newsmen vs bloggers...and the Zumaya dirt bike story.

“Bloggers are having a field day speculating on how Joel Zumaya really injured his shoulder. Nobody believes a heavy box fell on him. So the Internet is rife with stories about how he fell off his dirt bike.”

Yes, glad it is only the bloggers who are speculating. It’s not like another writer in McCosky’s own newspaper was also casting doubt on the situation. (hey look Chris, I’m citing my sources)

And what bloggers are having a field day speculating anyways? Now might be one of those times where a real reporter would cite his sources? Right Chris? The Tigers bloggers have been very careful not to report the dirt bike rumor. I didn’t mention it at all in my story. When a commenter brought it up, I provided a link to where the report originated (the comments section of legitimate news gathering agency ESPN.com) and cautioned the source. That actually seems to be considerably more responsible than what McCosky did in his piece today. Instead McCosky practices no journalistic principles when he incorrectly assigns the rumor to bloggers.

Repoz Posted: November 04, 2007 at 10:27 AM | 13 comment(s)
Related News: General, Detroit

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Rafael Bellylard (p8p) Posted: November 04, 2007 at 01:13 PM (#2604953)

Now might be one of those times where a real reporter would cite his sources?

Real reporters ALWAYS cite their sources. These people are, of course, the Source brothers. Triplets named Unknown, Team, and High-Ranking.

2. 8ball Posted: November 04, 2007 at 01:27 PM (#2604961)

I get the feeling that McCosky doesn't know the difference between a blog and a message board.

3. Halofan Posted: November 04, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2605033)

It is about two years away (death pool anyone?) but the day is coming when a big city in America loses its newspaper and goes web-only.

4. Rafael Bellylard (p8p) Posted: November 04, 2007 at 04:56 PM (#2605065)

Never happen until a major newspaper can sell the equivalency of a full-page Macy's ad to it's advertisers on-line.

I once talked to the publisher of a moderate-sized daily paper (circulation about 150,000), and he told me "the main job of a newspaper is to sell advertising." I'm sure he's not the only one that feels that way.

5. McCoy Posted: November 04, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2605068)

Obviously it won't "never happen" if a simple requirement like that is all that it will take. I don't know when but I'm pretty sure that at some point a major city if not the whole country will not have major paper in print. I think you will always have some form of a newspaper in print but it likely won't be the big boys at that point.

6. AROM Posted: November 04, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2605082)

There are plenty of bloggers who hate reporters too. big deal.

7. The Milton Bradley Effect (Voxter) Posted: November 04, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2605097)

I'm sure he's not the only one that feels that way.

Pretty much anybody who is involved in the business side of a newspaper knows this. Newspapers don't make money by selling themselves to readers, but by selling ads to people who want their ads seen by readers. If that doesn't happen, newspapers fold.

8. Howie Menckel Posted: November 05, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2605244)

It's always been the case that newspapers would be happy to give the paper away for free and seemingly maximize circulation, and thus ad revenues.

But human psychology demands that some price, even a modest one, be paid for anything of value.
Hence the 10 cent, 25 cent, now 50 cent incidental cost.
But that's not where the real money is.

9. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: November 05, 2007 at 02:01 AM (#2605259)

Are you suggesting that people wouldn't take the newspaper if it were free?

Of course, it's always been possible to get the newspaper for free anyway, so maybe you have a point. It's also probably true, though, that if everyone tried to get the paper for free, most would fail to do so. And before the prevalence of recycle bins, getting it out of the trash to read it was a somewhat filthy proposition.

I've heard of newspapers continuing to send their paper to subscribers long after their subscriptions expired, too, clearly to boost their circulation numbers.

10. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 05, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2605263)

Are you suggesting that people wouldn't take the newspaper if it were free?

To an extent. People may or may not take it. But advertisers simply don't have faith that people are reading those free newspapers to make the cost of advertising worth it. Advertisers figure, probably rightly so, that people who actually spend the money to receive the paper will be more likely to read the paper, and their advertisements.

11. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: November 05, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2605265)

Well that's probably true. Now, I don't take it out of the trash unless I'm going to read it, either, but that's a different story. . .

On the other hand, last week I picked up a couple of free papers to put over my head when I had to go out walking in the rain. I certainly didn't read those!

12. You can't lose with Randy Winn, says Flynn Posted: November 05, 2007 at 03:42 AM (#2605273)

It is about two years away (death pool anyone?) but the day is coming when a big city in America loses its newspaper and goes web-only.

Hell, you don't need a death pool. It'll be the SF Chronicle, which is floundering due to a combination of pressures of competing in the most web-sodden area of the whole country and being completely crap.

I don't know why, but UK newspapers seem healthier, and they're certainly better papers to read. The Guardian is a lot better to read than any US paper. They also give away stuff every now and then to entice readership - I picked up Stop Making Sense one Sunday. Not a selection of songs, but the entire DVD. The Daily Mail is giving away a 15 part documentary.

13. BFFB Posted: November 05, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2605288)

Football drives a heck of alot of Newspaper buying in the UK.

Hell football and Page 3 is the only reason The Sun exists. It's certainly not the in depth news reporting.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, November 04, 2007

The Detroit Tiger Weblog: Newsflash: Reporter hates bloggers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics