Fox Sports Ends Print -- the Death of Sports Reporting?

  • #1
russ_watters
Mentor
20,569
7,212
Interesting little development in [sports] media: Fox Sports, which was my go-to for sports reporting has fired all 20 of its writers (seems like a really small number...) to focus entirely on video. I noticed this a week ago when I went looking for commentary on the NBA draft (Philly had a big night...) and found no stories, only videos. Now the entire site (except for the scores) is just video clips of their commentary shows.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-writing-staff-to-invest-more-in-online-video

Evidently, it is cheaper to chop and post the commentary videos from its sports talk shows than actual reporting -- and you can force people to watch ads before getting to your videos. The problem for me is that these commentary videos are less informative and more intentionally provocative -- they aren't really news.

I guess I'll have to go back to ESPN....though they just got rid of a large number of reporters (print and TV personalities) as well. Or maybe USA Today....but I fear that this is the way media is moving in general.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,908
7,871
I share your frustration at the continuing weakening of print news and I do believe the trend is going to continue.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #3
jtbell
Mentor
15,764
4,001
When I saw the thread title, I thought, "Did Fox Sports have a magazine or something?" To me, "print" means ink on dead trees. :wink:

Still, I agree with your basic point about replacing text that you can read with video that you have to sit through and watch. I'd much rather read a transcript of a talking-head video than watch the video itself. For me, the video may still worth be watching if it has action clips (sports or on-the-scene news), but in that case I need captions or subtitles because I'm hearing-impaired.

And what about all those people who are presumably reading Fox Sports at the office with the sound turned off so as not to attract attention from their bosses?
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Greg Bernhardt
  • #4
18,423
8,260
Still, I agree with your basic point about replacing text that you can read with video that you have to sit through and watch.
+1 I am increasingly annoyed by this. Some sites are just blocks and blocks of videos, some that auto load and I don't even know where the sound is coming from.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
380
250
First TV and then the Internet: these are the two forces that have cut the legs out from under print journalism, whether for sports or any other beat. Customers moved to TV and advertising followed; no ads means no way to pay for staff. This was a trend many decades in the making; local newspapers were hurt first and worst. The Internet made things worse in terms of undercutting the timeliness and therefore the usefulness of print, but I haven't kept track of the advertising/revenue picture and how that has been skewed; other than to know that conventional news operations have struggled most, simply because their payrolls and other expenses are so much higher than for cheapie operations such as HuffPost.

I agree those sports reporting operations which remain on the web are doing poorly: e.g. over the last couple of years, it's become apparent that Tennis.com, which is related to Tennis magazine, has almost no money now to pay writers and copy editors beyond a skeleton crew; the result is predictably shoddy.

Back to print, even the few national papers we once regarded as unshakeable are apparently suffering financially. I guess we've known this for awhile, but the symptoms seem to be getting worse: e.g. it has been in the news that the New York Times is contemplating cutting its copy editing crew in half. The copy editors have written an angry letter to management about this, and reporters have joined in the protest: http://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-reporters-join-fight-in-solidarity-with-copy-editors

Grim prospect: If the big papers really were to crumble, along with what's left of AP and other legit organizations, we'd be left with almost no professional reporting; just the few pros still on TV. Outside of that it would be the likes of Facebook and Breitbart and HuffPost and "fake news" of various sorts.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,518
4,198
Back to print, even the few national papers we once regarded as unshakeable are apparently suffering financially. I guess we've known this for awhile, but the symptoms seem to be getting worse: e.g. it has been in the news that the New York Times is contemplating cutting its copy editing crew in half. The copy editors have written an angry letter to management about this, and reporters have joined in the protest: http://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-reporters-join-fight-in-solidarity-with-copy-editors

Wow, and that despite raising paper prices to $2.50 weekly and $5 for Sunday?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,908
7,871
Grim prospect: If the big papers really were to crumble, along with what's left of AP and other legit organizations, we'd be left with almost no professional reporting; just the few pros still on TV. Outside of that it would be the likes of Facebook and Breitbart and HuffPost and "fake news" of various sorts.
And the millions of Fox News watchers would never notice.
 
  • #8
StatGuy2000
Education Advisor
1,824
923
First TV and then the Internet: these are the two forces that have cut the legs out from under print journalism, whether for sports or any other beat. Customers moved to TV and advertising followed; no ads means no way to pay for staff. This was a trend many decades in the making; local newspapers were hurt first and worst. The Internet made things worse in terms of undercutting the timeliness and therefore the usefulness of print, but I haven't kept track of the advertising/revenue picture and how that has been skewed; other than to know that conventional news operations have struggled most, simply because their payrolls and other expenses are so much higher than for cheapie operations such as HuffPost.

I agree those sports reporting operations which remain on the web are doing poorly: e.g. over the last couple of years, it's become apparent that Tennis.com, which is related to Tennis magazine, has almost no money now to pay writers and copy editors beyond a skeleton crew; the result is predictably shoddy.

Back to print, even the few national papers we once regarded as unshakeable are apparently suffering financially. I guess we've known this for awhile, but the symptoms seem to be getting worse: e.g. it has been in the news that the New York Times is contemplating cutting its copy editing crew in half. The copy editors have written an angry letter to management about this, and reporters have joined in the protest: http://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-reporters-join-fight-in-solidarity-with-copy-editors

Grim prospect: If the big papers really were to crumble, along with what's left of AP and other legit organizations, we'd be left with almost no professional reporting; just the few pros still on TV. Outside of that it would be the likes of Facebook and Breitbart and HuffPost and "fake news" of various sorts.

The prospects you raise above signifies to me that the era of traditional commercial news outlets should (and most likely will at some stage) come to an end, and investigative news (all news -- whether they be local, national, or international) should be founded and established as non-profit entities (e.g. ProPublica) or arms-length government-funded organizations (e.g. CBC in Canada, the BBC in the UK, Al Jazeera English, etc.)
 

Related Threads on Fox Sports Ends Print -- the Death of Sports Reporting?

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
21K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top