Thursday, March 15, 2007
Advertising in Sports
Advertising is sort of a necessary evil. Honestly, I think advertising in many ways can be a good thing. It is really what allows us to watch sports so I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has destroyed sports. If it weren't for ads then you wouldn't ever get to see games on TV. I think what is really the problem in sports is the huge salaries. This is what creates the primadonnas and creates media frenzies about a player maybe even before the enter the pros. As far as excess, there is some advertising that seems like a waste of money. Does Bud really need another commercial to sell beer? Does Coke need another ad to sell coke? But I guess they can afford to do to it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Advertising in Sports
I honestly don't think that advertising during a sporting event is such a bad thing. That station, radio or television, has got to pay their bills somehow. That somehow is by selling ads. Without them the people who work on that station aren't going to get a paycheck and without them, you're not going to get to watch or listen to your favorite team. Advertisements are what keep this business afloat. Now some would say that there are too many ads during games because it seems as if they're always taking a commercial break. There is some truth to that statement. Baseball games for instance are 9 innings, a top half and a bottom half. Stations take breaks between each of those halves and at the end of each as well. Not to mention when a pitching change comes up. To me that's too many breaks. Stay with the game for a couple innings, give us a little extra info on what's going on in the game instead of showing the same bud light commercial for the nineteenth time. Now media coverage of certain teams, that's where most people get angry with sports journalists. With baseball it's the Yankees, basketball it's the Mavericks and the Heat and Lebron, football it's the cowboys, and on and on blah blah blah. Let's have some variety people. Show us the other teams and athletes. When you keep talking about the same damn players all the time like Lebron, D-Wade, Ladainian, A-Rod, and Jeter; yeah this crap gets old. Again variety is key if you want to keep the masses interested. Closing with the advertising of sports though, it's not that big of a deal. Cause without it, we'll have a big deal on our hands, sports on television and radio will cease to exist.
ESPN is what destroys sport.
Sports media and sports advertising has done a lot to destroy sports but the biggest contributor is the sports media giant ESPN.
Because of ESPN we have gotten the highlight reel.
Now players are concerned with only making the highlight reel. It's created a generation of athletes that only care about showboating and dancing so they can make the Top 10.
Then you've got all these sportscenter anchors who are nothing more than 40 year old white guys trying to sound hip and cool. They don't sound hip and cool and unfortuantely they teach young aspiring journalists that this is the way to write and sound. Sports articles in the newspaper and on television shows has been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of cliches.
Plus the way they run coverage of certain things into the ground, just like other mediak creates a problem when you have athletes like Terrell Owens. ESPN gives him so much coverage that he knows all he has to do is something very small and he'll get play on ESPN for 2 weeks.
Then you've got the fact that ESPN only covers their favorites. Barry Bonds, ARod, the Yankess, TO, Reggie Bush, the Cowboys, the Giants, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, the Lakers, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, etc. Many young fans of sports or casual fans think this is all their is out there. They think that's the cream of the crop when it's not true.
It doesn't help that ESPN flat out makes things up about these players or teams. One anchor called Reggie Bush the most dynamic offensive player in the NFL. This was at a time when he had like 3 total TDS and less than 300 rushing yards, while LT was running, throwing, and receiving touchdowns on a regular basis.
Advertising and media coverage has done a lot to damage sports but ESPN has been at the forefront of crappy decisions and styles that harm sports.
Because of ESPN we have gotten the highlight reel.
Now players are concerned with only making the highlight reel. It's created a generation of athletes that only care about showboating and dancing so they can make the Top 10.
Then you've got all these sportscenter anchors who are nothing more than 40 year old white guys trying to sound hip and cool. They don't sound hip and cool and unfortuantely they teach young aspiring journalists that this is the way to write and sound. Sports articles in the newspaper and on television shows has been reduced to nothing more than a bunch of cliches.
Plus the way they run coverage of certain things into the ground, just like other mediak creates a problem when you have athletes like Terrell Owens. ESPN gives him so much coverage that he knows all he has to do is something very small and he'll get play on ESPN for 2 weeks.
Then you've got the fact that ESPN only covers their favorites. Barry Bonds, ARod, the Yankess, TO, Reggie Bush, the Cowboys, the Giants, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, the Lakers, USC, Notre Dame, Duke, etc. Many young fans of sports or casual fans think this is all their is out there. They think that's the cream of the crop when it's not true.
It doesn't help that ESPN flat out makes things up about these players or teams. One anchor called Reggie Bush the most dynamic offensive player in the NFL. This was at a time when he had like 3 total TDS and less than 300 rushing yards, while LT was running, throwing, and receiving touchdowns on a regular basis.
Advertising and media coverage has done a lot to damage sports but ESPN has been at the forefront of crappy decisions and styles that harm sports.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
I think in the past gatekeeping has been a function of time and space. Taking into consideration the internet, like the discussion question asked, this is going to change. The internet, for now at least, is wide open to most people. I would argue that most people who keep up with current events use the internet to get information in some way. It is very possible that the gatekeepers of the future will be on the internet. Take the Drudge Report. This is basically a collection of headlines that will take you to the actual story. Millions of people use this page as a starting point for their internet consumption. Matt Drudge has become a gatekeeper to the internet. Basically any blog just lays out the the author thinks is important for you to take a look at for yourself. This could range from politics, to videogames, music, to celebrity gossip. If you think about how big and vast the internet can be you kind of need something like this. So if the internet is the future of news then blogs like this will be the gatekeepers.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Gatekeepers
Who is a gatekeeper? Am i a gatekeeper? Are you a gatekeeper? Gatekeepers are people who decide what people should read or see as news. Given the internet than you and I are both gatekeepers, but on radio and television who are those gatekeepers. Lawyers, that's who are television gatekeepers. They decide what should be news because they say if they story might have legal ramifications.
Although if you think about it everyone involved in the news process is a gatekeeper. They reporter or editor/producer decides what story is news and if it is worth covering. From there somone covers the story and decides what they feel is news worthy. Then they try and pass it on the the public who has no say what they cover as news.
The gatekeepers of tomorrow are probably going to be the public because of the internet. People want information quickly and the internet is the best way. The internet also allows people to choose what they want to read instead of being force feed news, like television does.
Like Kelley and Gabby's quote says, "What you get is what you got because when they own the information they can bend it all they want” – John Mayer
Although if you think about it everyone involved in the news process is a gatekeeper. They reporter or editor/producer decides what story is news and if it is worth covering. From there somone covers the story and decides what they feel is news worthy. Then they try and pass it on the the public who has no say what they cover as news.
The gatekeepers of tomorrow are probably going to be the public because of the internet. People want information quickly and the internet is the best way. The internet also allows people to choose what they want to read instead of being force feed news, like television does.
Like Kelley and Gabby's quote says, "What you get is what you got because when they own the information they can bend it all they want” – John Mayer
Gatekeeping
I'm going to have to agree with JR on this one. I believe that in the future the gatekeepers of the media will be the main population. Why not? So much news nowadays is being put on the Internet before it even reaches print or broadcast. You can't have a gatekeeper for all of these news organizations that you see online. I'm sure that these organizations have editors and human resource people that try to limit what goes up and what doesn't but it's going to be hard for every single one of those organizations to do so. One problem that some of these organizations would face would be to staff people to do that job. They're not going to want to pay someone just to decide what stories go up on someones blog. They've got bigger fish to fry. Also, gatekeeping can be kind of ridiculous if you look at it. Somebody decides what news stories I'm going to read. That's BS! I'll decide what news stories I want to read. I don't need you to bias the already biased news circuit by putting the stories you want me to read on the internet. If you're going to do that, that's totally fine with me. You just lost readership. When you start losing money to fund your stupid little news organization with your fancy gatekeeper, maybe you'll think twice won't you.
Media Gatekeepers of the future.
I think the media gatekeepers of the future will be the people.
With the prevalence of the internet and blogs you don't have the process of an editor looking something over. For a lot of things you don't have big HR departments to handle everything.
You still have that in other forms of media but when it comes to the internet and personal news sites you lose that.
However that doesn't mean that they're going to go crazy and write about whatever they want. I think it's quite the opposite.
The people will keep these in line and make sure they don't go reporting anything that isn't true.
The people will read these blogs and check the facts(hopefully) and see if they're being told the truth or being fed a line of crap.
And if they are constantly being fed crap then they will respond to the person writing this blog or just stop reading all together. When they notice an overwhelming negative response or a loss of readership then they will be forced to change their practice.
With the prevalence of the internet and blogs you don't have the process of an editor looking something over. For a lot of things you don't have big HR departments to handle everything.
You still have that in other forms of media but when it comes to the internet and personal news sites you lose that.
However that doesn't mean that they're going to go crazy and write about whatever they want. I think it's quite the opposite.
The people will keep these in line and make sure they don't go reporting anything that isn't true.
The people will read these blogs and check the facts(hopefully) and see if they're being told the truth or being fed a line of crap.
And if they are constantly being fed crap then they will respond to the person writing this blog or just stop reading all together. When they notice an overwhelming negative response or a loss of readership then they will be forced to change their practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)