A lot has changed since I took over daily operation of the Bleacher Report Blog almost four years ago. And this blog has changed right along with it.
In the spring of 2011 B/R was digging into the process of improving the quality of the content. The task of the B/R Blog was to offer journalism advice, education and examples of success. I used to joke that my job was like being the dean of a correspondence journalism school. Now Bleacher Report has evolved to the point where we no longer feel the need to provide that kind of basic journalism education on this blog.
Over time this blog has transitioned away from journalism education toward what I’d call media studies. I have tried to point out trends and topics in the media business that I thought would be useful and interesting to early- or mid-career journalists.
We’ve also used the B/R Blog to make announcements and talk about editorial policies of interest to Bleacher Report writers.
All of that is going to continue, but we’ve decided to scale back from the B/R Blog’s daily posting schedule. When there’s something to say, whether it’s about the media business, journalism topics or Bleacher Report policies and announcements, we’ll say it. You can expect several blog posts per month.
You can also expect more activity from the @BR_WriterHQ Twitter feed, which your humble narrator runs. That’s where I’ll be pointing out great sportswriting and interesting ideas about journalism on a daily basis.
Thanks for reading and commenting on this Blog over the last four years. I look forward to more of the same. Just not quite as often.
Sticking with the theme of audio from yesterday’s post, here’s an interesting conversation among Digiday editor in chief Brian Morrissey, staff writer Eric Blattberg and Slate general manager Brendan Monaghan about podcasting.
Slate, which Morrissey writes has 15 regular podcasts, is “spinning out a podcast network called Panoply, which will offer its expertise to other publishers wanting to build their own podcasts.”
As Morrissey points out, podcasting, which has been around for a decade or so and never really went away, is enjoying a boom in the wake of the success of “Serial.”
You can listen to the conversation on Digiday’s 23-minute podcast, or read some highlights, including this quote from Monaghan, which sounds a lot like what ESPN Audio chief Traug Keller had to say yesterday:
Everyone is so used to their DVR. In the audio space, that’s happening as well. You see that, whether it’s a DVR or an Uber or food delivery. It’s people getting things when they want it and how they want it. Combine them, and you’ve got a pretty compelling case.
It’s a good interview, with Keller talking about ESPN’s top radio personalities, what the four-letter considers “the line” that its radio talent shouldn’t cross—”Whatever you do, don’t make anything personal”—and what ESPN could do better in the audio world.
Deep in the article, on Page 3 if you land there without being sent to a single-page version by someone nice like me, is Keller talking about the changing nature of the radio landscape:
There had been 10,000 program directors at 10,000 radio stations telling you what to listen to. But what is happening now is the fan or the listener is really becoming in charge. What we need to keep thinking about it is having as wide a net as possible but putting out as much diverse and different programming, even simultaneously. You may want Colin Cowherd or [ESPN Chicago's] Waddle and Silvy and it’s now your choice. On the ESPN Radio app you can listen to the network stream or a local show in Chicago or Cleveland, or a podcast of Matthew Berry or the audio version of PTI. Now the listener is in charge and that is a fundamental dynamic change that is going on.
That’s a very succinct and very useful description of a massive change in media that’s happened in the last two decades. I think it can’t be overstated. It’s the fundamental fact on which the whole business is built: The listener—reader, user, viewer—is in charge.
Remember that insane episode last weekend with the dress that was either white and gold or blue and black? At Poynter.org Craig Silverman writes that that debate offered a lesson every journalist needs to learn.
That lesson is that “We are all at the mercy of our brains and its cognitive processes,” Silverman writes. “The simple truth is our brains process information in ways that can lead us astray. This is something every journalist needs to be aware of and account for in the work we do.”
The dress is a reminder that we sometimes see things that aren’t there, misperceive what’s right in front of us, and otherwise fall victim to our own brains.
This is particularly true when it comes to the way we process information. Once we have made up our minds—or decided on an angle for our story—we assimilate information in accordance with that view.
“[W]e humans quickly develop an irrational loyalty to our beliefs, and work hard to find evidence that supports those opinions and to discredit, discount or avoid information that does not,” wrote Cordelia Fine, the author of “A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives,” in The New York Times.
Journalists are told to be aware of the biases of sources. But we must also be constantly aware of, and seeking to mitigate, our own cognitive biases.
Quoting from his Tow Centre research report about online rumors and how news organizations debunk misinformation, Silverman lists and explains five phenomena and biases that can trip up journalists. Here they are, with a brief description of each, but you should read Silverman’s piece for a more thorough explanation of each.
The Backfire Effect: “When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.”
Confirmation Bias: “For journalists, it often manifests itself as an unwillingness to pay attention to facts and information that go against our predetermined angle for a story.”
Motivated Reasoning: “Whereas confirmation bias is an automatic tendency to notice data that fit with our beliefs, motivated reasoning is the complementary tendency to scrutinize ideas more carefully if we don’t like them than if we do.”
Biased Assimilation: “We interpret and understand new information in a way that fits with what we already know or believe.”
Group Polarization: “If we’re speaking with people who share our view, the tendency is for all of us to become even more vehement about it.”
If I were the kind of person who felt guilty about things it would be a guilty pleasure of mine to read things like Roy Peter Clark’s Fifty Writing Tools: Quick List at Poynter.org.
I always picture Ernest Hemingway scoffing at me and then punching me in the nose as I perused Clark’s list of tips and tricks, which he advises readers to keep handy near their desk or keyboard. A few of the numbered tools:
1. Begin sentences with subjects and verbs.
Make meaning early, then let weaker elements branch to the right
11. Prefer the simple over the technical.
Use shorter words, sentences and paragraphs at points of complexity.
23. Tune your voice.
Read drafts aloud.
When it comes down to it, I’m not scared of Hemingway. For one thing, he’s been dead for more than half a century, so I like my chances in a fair fight. For another, in his own way, he had his own tips and tools for writers.
I don’t know if there’s anything in Clark’s list that’s a big revelation to me. I just find it helpful to me as a writer to read things like it once in a while. It’s a battery charger. Oh yeah: That’s how you do it.
Strong applicants to the Advanced Program in Editing and Content Management come to us from a variety of backgrounds, having experience in everything from school paper production and peer editing to research projects and book publishing.
A solid sports background is certainly key, as is some proofreading prowess. But while we’ll need to see that eye for detail and grammar know-how, we’re also interested in the wide range of tools you’ve picked up in college and sharpened in the real world. So we’re happy to see well-rounded résumés that show hard work, ingenuity and comfort with online media. More specifically, we’re looking for:
- An editing track record—in or out of school
- The ability to identify and correct typos; factual grammatical and punctuation errors; and deviations from style
- A feel for what is required to constitute a well-supported argument
- An understanding of the importance of sourcing and attribution
- The willingness to learn, reference stylebooks, apply feedback and collaborate
- A sense for visually appealing formatting and layout
- Facility with the technical aspects of digital publishing
- A keen attention to the nitty-gritty—balanced with excellent time management
- Knowledge about specific sports and teams
Any candidate who progresses through our admissions process will be asked to provide us with a few different supporting materials—and by that we mean to say there will be things like résumé requests and editing tests, but we emphasize the word different to underscore our hunt for individuality, special skill sets and untapped potential.
Meanwhile, these tips should apply to all stages of application across the board:
Take your time: Quick turnarounds are part of a digital editor’s daily life, but you should take the time necessary to produce a polished application. Read carefully, follow our directions and double-check everything you send our way. Proofread everything. You’re applying to an editing program, so we need to see tidy, top-notch emails. Make sure you’re addressing your message to the right people, clean up stray marks and catch any misspellings before you hit “send.”
Reference resources: This goes hand in hand with the first hint. Look things up! Consult a dictionary, thumb through your AP Stylebook, confirm grammar rules, check spellings and dates. Do all this before you hit “send,” and you’ll not only be getting a clean application in front of our admissions team but also showcasing your knack for fact-finding.
Provide a fully representative résumé: Have you done prior copy editing work in some capacity? Do you have experience with a CMS, SEO, AP style, photo/video production? Let us know. Make sure to list these tidbits so we’re getting the full picture of your skill set. In journalism’s changing landscape, roles are in flux and editorial positions are always expanding, so don’t sell yourself short because you think some of your editorial experience doesn’t fit.
Include a writing sample: A writing sample is optional, but if you have something appropriate to share, don’t be shy! A well-produced clip or undergrad essay can be a nice complement to your other supporting materials.
Ask if you’re unsure: We try to make the application process as straightforward as possible, but if you find you’re unclear about something, we welcome any questions.
Be professional and persistent: A professional attitude is required, and we’ll look favorably upon more formal rather than more casual communications. The program itself maintains a relaxed training dialogue, but do what you can to show you’re serious about your application. We also encourage you to try, try again. The APECM is very competitive, so you may not receive an offer of admission your first time out, but we’ll urge you to shore up your weaker points and take another crack at the process after a few months of practice and reflection.
We know it can be tough to stand out as a top candidate when it comes to a discipline like editing, which calls for some standardized proficiencies. But if you do your best to accomplish and demonstrate as many of the above as possible, you should have a leg up on the competition. Best of luck!
Bleacher Report’s paid Advanced Program in Sports Media offers participants an opportunity to learn the ins and outs of digital sportswriting, boost their 21st-century sports reporting skills and test their knowledge while covering stories they care about.
But admissions standards are very high. A vast majority of those who apply don’t get in. So we decided to ask graduates of the program for their advice about the best approach to the application process.
From personal blogs to nationwide columns and everything in between, ideal APSM candidates already have publishing experience and have done their due diligence by shoring up the most objective parts of their writing. They bring more to the table than a garden-variety interest in sports and a talent for writing. Good storytelling requires conflict, so the ability to identify tension and translate it into an interesting narrative is crucial. Additionally, applicants must have a strong grasp on the fundamentals of journalism, such as attention-capturing ledes, accurate attribution and thorough proofreading.
But all of that is merely the foundation from which successful APSM candidates build their content.
To that foundation, strong candidates add a mix of analytical prowess, voice, visual storytelling and novel perspective. Since writing is such a subjective medium, the right mix varies from writer to writer. The common thread is a polished finished product that stands apart from the crowd, but there is no perfect recipe that will guarantee success.
Here are some of the most common responses we got when we asked graduates for their advice:
- Check your ego at the door and treat the application as your only chance to make a good impression
- Be professional
- Study the B/R Stylebook, Writer Tutorial, Content Standards and Playbook: The Basics of Writing for Bleacher Report prior to submitting your writing sample
- Read some B/R content to get an idea of what is considered feature-worthy
- Leverage social media to make sure your information is up-to-date and double check it to ensure accuracy
- Don’t be afraid to show some personality in your writing or to make bold statements
- Emphasize your strengths, but be enthusiastic and willing to learn
Ultimately, the right approach will depend on the individual. What works for some won’t work for others, but by using this advice as a rough blueprint, applicants will be able to make their best case. If you’re interested in the program and decide to apply, we hope this helps. Good luck!
It found that while a large plurality of young adults get their news primarily from online-only news sites, those who prefer traditional websites of traditional news outlets rate themselves as better informed:
More than half of young adults who prefer traditional news sites said they were “very informed,” a rating chosen by only four out of every 10 who prefer online-only news sites. Yet online-only news is the primary source of news for nearly 35 percent, compared to 22 percent for traditional news sites.
The survey was of 18- to 24-year-old readers and followers of Elite Daily. According to the Florida J-school site, “The results are not generalizable to all young adults, but do provide insights on news preferences of a segment of that generation.”
“Even though the overwhelming majority of young adults are turning to digital sources for news, there is still a perception by some that they are better informed through traditional media,” said Diane McFarlin, dean of the UF College of Journalism and Communications.
Why is that? Is it just perception, or is there something to it? I often think people credit pre-Internet journalism with more gravitas and better quality than it actually had, whether they’re old enough to have lived through it or, like the people in this survey, too young to remember. Does that cause people to give traditional news organizations more credit than they deserve today?
Or is there something online-only outlets are doing or not doing that’s causing users to feel less than “very informed”?
If you teach digital journalism, you might make these statements required reading and discuss them in class. http://t.co/rZEibb8rnE
— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) February 24, 2015
That link led to a page with links to four “Candidate’s Statements” and the heading:
Editor in Chief of The Guardian
Organised by the Guardian and Observer Chapel Branch of the NUJ
It turns out the NUJ is the National Union of Journalists, a trade union in the United Kingdom and Ireland. What’s happening is that Guardian and Observer journalists are voting on a candidate to replace Alan Rusbridger as editor-in-chief of Guardian Newspapers. The four candidates were to present their cases to the journalists at a hustings Wednesday night.
According to the Guardian, the winner of the vote won’t necessarily be appointed editor, but will be guaranteed a spot on the short list of candidates the Scott Trust, which owns Guardian Media Group, will choose from.
Before that meeting, each of the candidates posted a statement of their vision for the Guardian at the above link. That’s what Rosen wants students of digital media to read. The candidates, as described by the Guardian, are “Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University and a non-executive director of Guardian owner the Scott Trust; Wolfgang Blau, GNM’s director of digital strategy; Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of theguardian.com; and Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of Guardian US.”
I agree with Rosen that the candidates’ statements, which are about 1,000 words each, are worth reading to see what some of the most prominent journalists in the business are thinking about how to lead a major media outlet.
Everyone—moderators to developers—should feel able to contribute to what we make, how we think, how we run ourselves, and more. We’ve always been a journalists’ paper. Expanding what makes a journalist is part of our future.
I see a necessary reallocation of resources and costs, but not a reduction in our number of journalists. In the next phase of its existence, the Guardian will have to accelerate the skills needed at the heart of a modern news organisation. We need more data and computationally literate reporters, editors and designers, we need thorough digital security training and practices, and we need journalists who understand how to use the vast amount of information on the social web using search and verification techniques.
Journalism and technology have merged. To produce and deliver journalism that is relevant today, we need a close relationship between editorial, product and engineers, developing stories together, working out what to do about mobile, loyalty, data; plus a super-charged approach to helping readers find our journalism.
In regards to our journalistic portfolio, I would like to propose that we substantially increase the diversity of voices—politically, as well as ethnically—and that we also identify those areas of our coverage that are neither able to sharpen the Guardian’s journalistic profile nor to attract our readers to come visit us more frequently. The result of this exercise might be that we produce fewer stories than today, but with greater impact.
When reading such things, I always try to find ideas, advice and ways of thinking for my own career.
Deitsch occasionally convenes roundtable discussions, via email, among working pros on topics in sports media. This week, in response to the news that 28-year-old Katie Nolan will be hosting a nightly show on Fox Sports 1 starting in March, Deitsch gathered seven women who are 30 and under and working in sports media to talk about their experience in the business.
The discussion is long and well worth reading. It’s certainly not all negativity, but Sports Illustrated NFL writer Jenny Vrentas did concisely sum up what one of the biggest problems young women in sports media have to deal with:
Young women seem to have to do a lot more to “prove” themselves than young men, to be considered for senior jobs on sports staffs. Early in my career, an editor told me I wasn’t ready for a beat yet, even though there were other reporters of a similar age and experience level covering sports beats at the newspaper. I’d covered Penn State football in college, and I had a master’s degree in journalism, so I had a hard time understanding what else I needed to do. I focused on working hard at the assignments that were given to me and worked my way up. But at times in my career, I’ve felt as though there was an assumption that I couldn’t do something, and I had to prove otherwise. I feel that, more often, men get the benefit of the doubt. You certainly see a trend across the business, where women are less often given the more prestigious roles like the biggest beat at a newspaper, senior writer, analyst or editor.
The others on the panel are Kalyee Hartung of ESPN, Laura Keeley of The Raleigh News & Observer and Charlotte Observer, Laken Litman of USA Today, Monica McNutt of NewsChannel8 in Washington, Gina Mizell of The Oregonian and Francesca Weems of WLBT/FOX 40 in Jackson, Miss.