I understand your point of view, but I can't quite share your disdain. Sports journos go into sports journalism in the first place because they're passionate about the sports they cover, and are perhaps taken in by the lure of being the man on the beat assigned to cover the clubs they love (in football journalism, anyway). Once they're in the field, they find that it's a cut-throat, nepotistic affair, where there are three ways you can go - firstly, publish endless amounts of clickbait journalism and two-paragraph articles for pennies on the dollar, often not earning enough to even justify the investment in time and bandwidth. Secondly, get an education and a network of contacts in a sector so specialized that you don't have many competitors in your field, and pitch yourself on the basis of that specialization to a hundred papers (ninety-eight of which will probably reject you because they don't need someone with that specialization). Or, thirdly, work to get into the good graces of the club you're covering on a frequent basis, in the hope that you can break some exclusive news they leak you and get noticed that way.
The former option will soon die out too, in my opinion - algorithms for auto-generating articles like those written for clickbait purposes are getting better, and the decline of advertising revenue across the internet in general is going to ensure that people left writing those kinds of articles will get even less money for what they do.
So, what choice will they have in that situation? Every journo dreams of being the one to pen long, revealing, thoughtful articles in national newspapers - of being the type to break world-changing stories that win Pulitzers (or, in this case, awards for sports journalists). But to even get to the point where a national newspaper will consider giving you the time and space to write your own copy, you need to have a name and a record of breaking stories that generate clicks and views, or copies (if you're still in the rapidly dying print business). And the only ways left to do that now are to work your way into a club's good graces *or* be an area specialist in a field rare enough for a paper to give you time to write the stories that will get you noticed. Naturally, the vast majority go for the former option.
If you want better journalism as a consumer, pay for it. If you want better journalism as a citizen, vote for parties that help improve the media landscape so that this stuff isn't necessary anymore. But otherwise, the man or woman doing the writing isn't really to blame for wanting a way to make a (still very modest) living, imo.[/QUOTE
I understand your point of view, but I can't quite share your disdain. Sports journos go into sports journalism in the first place because they're passionate about the sports they cover, and are perhaps taken in by the lure of being the man on the beat assigned to cover the clubs they love (in football journalism, anyway). Once they're in the field, they find that it's a cut-throat, nepotistic affair, where there are three ways you can go - firstly, publish endless amounts of clickbait journalism and two-paragraph articles for pennies on the dollar, often not earning enough to even justify the investment in time and bandwidth. Secondly, get an education and a network of contacts in a sector so specialized that you don't have many competitors in your field, and pitch yourself on the basis of that specialization to a hundred papers (ninety-eight of which will probably reject you because they don't need someone with that specialization). Or, thirdly, work to get into the good graces of the club you're covering on a frequent basis, in the hope that you can break some exclusive news they leak you and get noticed that way.
The former option will soon die out too, in my opinion - algorithms for auto-generating articles like those written for clickbait purposes are getting better, and the decline of advertising revenue across the internet in general is going to ensure that people left writing those kinds of articles will get even less money for what they do.
So, what choice will they have in that situation? Every journo dreams of being the one to pen long, revealing, thoughtful articles in national newspapers - of being the type to break world-changing stories that win Pulitzers (or, in this case, awards for sports journalists). But to even get to the point where a national newspaper will consider giving you the time and space to write your own copy, you need to have a name and a record of breaking stories that generate clicks and views, or copies (if you're still in the rapidly dying print business). And the only ways left to do that now are to work your way into a club's good graces *or* be an area specialist in a field rare enough for a paper to give you time to write the stories that will get you noticed. Naturally, the vast majority go for the former option.
If you want better journalism as a consumer, pay for it. If you want better journalism as a citizen, vote for parties that help improve the media landscape so that this stuff isn't necessary anymore. But otherwise, the man or woman doing the writing isn't really to blame for wanting a way to make a (still very modest) living, imo.
Journalism like all industries has change massively in the last 50 years. I worked in the industry all my working life from local rag to national and international companies and virtually all the "sports journalist" I've known desperately wanted to move on to better things as most were not highly regarded, but that was before the Sky impact. Alan Partridge is a wonderful facsimile of the type. Back in the 60's a lot of match reports were sourced from news agencies or chosen employees who went to the game.
'Win things' equals a variety of pots and pans in the trophy cabinet, a steady stream of medals and a firm guarantee to any players that join - namely, that they will not leave Tottenham Hotspur without burnishing up their own places in football history as winners of competitions large and small.
