Unit 2 Portfolio

Technology has become ever present in our lives. Everyone in my generation grew up around computers, smartphones, and the internet from a young age, and it has undoubtedly had a massive effect on all of us. As a sports fan, it has been easy to see how the sports landscape has changed with new technologies. While SportsCenter and ESPN were revolutionary when they were first launched, they have almost been made obsolete by highlights coming in instantaneously on social media, news breaks on Twitter, and games are being streamed more than watched on television. I think the way journalism as a whole, but specifically relating to sports, is very interesting, and I wanted to look more into it. I believe that as sports journalism has moved into a more digital space, it is in a better place than ever before.

There have been plenty of stories about newspapers dying, and my house has always received the newspaper, and I grew up reading the sports section of the New York Daily News, so I appreciate reading sports articles. I still read a lot of sports content, but it has moved online, with website like ESPN, The Ringer, SBNation, and The Athletic putting out more content a day than a newspaper could in a week. Not only do they have regionalized coverage specific to teams that a fan would want, but that fan now has access to stories that they never would have 10 years ago. For instance, ESPN recently put out a story on the Phoenix Sun's front office. Prior to the digital age, this sort of article wouldn't have reached people outside of Arizona. However, the internet has connected the world of sports in ways that people couldn't have imagined when local newspapers dominated the scene. The sports consumer is now better informed than ever, since if Syracuse is going to play Clemson in basketball like they do on Saturday, I can read game recaps on Clemson from ESPN, look at local online newspapers in South Carolina for injury updates and stories about the team, and read fan blogs for what my counterparts think about the Tigers. This stands in stark contrast to the days of newspapers, where all I would've gotten is a preview in the Daily Orange on Saturday morning.

I also think that Twitter has made a huge and positive impact on the world of sports journalism. Look at Adam Schefter, a reporter on the NFL for ESPN. He breaks almost all of his scoops on Twitter, and the same can be said for every other major sports reporter at every company. The news is getting to everyone in a way which it hasn't previously, as almost instantaneously, people can learn about trades, free agent signings, and anything else you could want to know from these reporters as stories are breaking. I think the genius of Twitter and sports media is the way they can spread their thoughts and interact with normal people as a story is happening. If Schefter tweets out that a player on the Detroit Lions is getting traded, a Lions beat writer can immediately offer his thoughts on the deal and how it affects the team and interact with the fans sharing their thoughts in real time. It gives people who previously never really had a voice, the fans, an avenue to share what they are thinking with the professionals. I think that dynamic is adding a realness to the people who previously you only got to know through their writing, and it adds authenticity to what they are saying. Additionally, you can customize your news. Instead having to watch SportsCenter for an hour just to get one piece of information at the end, you can pick and choose what shows up in your feed. If you don't care about the NBA, just don't follow their account or basketball writers. Want more coverage of your favorite baseball team? Follow their beat writers. You no longer have to get news which you don't care about

In addition to utilizing Twitter, many reporters now also have podcasts, which are an additional way to distribute their content. Some of the largest names in sports journalism, such as Schefter, Bill Simmons, Adrian Wojarnowski, Buster Only, and Jon Rothstein, all the premier source for breaking news in their fields, have podcasts, as well as television personalities such as Stephen A. Smith and Colin Cowherd, who post their radio shows as podcasts. I think this is yet another example of sports journalism becoming more conversational, as listening to someone talk gives you that sense of connectivity that isn't there on a page. It also gives more fans voices, as pretty much anyone can start a podcast and share their opinions, even if they have no sort of journalism background. With the barrier for entry being lowered, conversations that previously took place during games with friends and in bars can now be recorded and put out for others to listen to and enjoy. That has been the backbone of one of the most successful companies in sports journalism: Barstool Sports.

Barstool Sports was founded by a Boston sports fan named Dave Portnoy in the early 2000s, and has since grown into one of the biggest brands in sports. It perfectly utilizes all of the above points, and combines them to be a massive name on the sports scene. They are essentially the antithesis of larger companies, thriving in a space where others don't dare to venture While companies like ESPN present their content with a certain level of polish, Barstool is notoriously unfiltered, talking like fans in bars. ESPN personalities have broadcasting degrees, Barstool employs average sports fans who write blogs and record podcasts. ESPN televises Monday Night Football, Barstool, and especially Portnoy, have an ongoing rivalry with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. They employ all of the important beats from above: their website has multiple region-specific offshoots, covering the entire nation in sports, they have a strong social media presence, they produce a large variety of podcasts on a wide variety of topics, even venturing away from the sports space, and most of all, they have an incredibly strong connection with their fans. The company has an incredibly passionate fanbase, known as Stoolies, who are attracted to the different style of content Barstool provides. Instead of watching professional journalists and ex-pros talk about the game on TV, why not listen to guys who are essentially you? They are fans who openly root for their favorite teams, they gamble, they are crass, and they talk just like you. Perhaps one of their biggest draws is the customization factor. You can be a diehard Stoolie, who follows them on Twitter, watches their Youtube videos, and listens to 10 different podcasts. However, they have sports specific podcasts, so if you just want hockey coverage, you can listen to their hockey podcast and not associate with the rest of the brand. They also have content dedicated to things that have nothing to do with sports, such as a movie podcast.

Of course, they are not without their detractors. Their no filter style has gotten them into more than one controversy, and they have a tendency to be offensive with some of the things they say, especially towards women. Their off the cuff remarks have veered towards sexist at times, and while they were say it's how all guys think and talk, that isn't true for large segments of the population. Barstool has also been one of the most common examples of people saying the online world is hurting journalism with worse content. Their writers aren't trained, have no credentials, and write blogs. The content can be viewed as lesser compared to what a newspaper can provide, and there is probably some credence to that. Just because anyone can have a voice doesn't mean that they should, and there are plenty of cases of blogs that are essentially just people shouting into the wind with poor grammar and overall writing ability. They have also made enemies with the NFL, and as journalists, have very little objectivity. While it may appeal some, you aren't going to find an unbiased look anywhere on Barstool. This has been a problem for sports journalism as a whole, with more fan sites popping up and even established reporters, like ESPN's Scott Van Pelt, expressing their fan allegiances very openly and publicly. There is also the problem of becoming too insulated. If your Twitter feed only shows one viewpoint, whether it's about sports or not, you won't face any pushback on your opinions and that can be very dangerous. While the implications in the sports world may not be as serious, you can essentially tune out writers who you disagree with, whether they advocate for trading your favorite player or you think they give preferential treatment to an opposing team. Additionally, extreme customization can be very dangerous, as the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari delves into. There are times when social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, know you better than you know yourself, and they tailor advertising towards you. They can also take things out they think you won't like in advance based on your past choices, which can censor potential avenues you didn't know were there.

All in all, while the digital world presents its own challenges, I think it has improved sports journalism. There is a higher volume of content now than ever, and most of it is very good. While there are bloggers that pump out senseless nonsense, that isn't the only content available. A website like the Athletic provides high quality journalism, with plenty of writers hired away from companies like ESPN and CBS, and they are given a lot of freedom with their content, allowed to write a lot of longer form pieces, not putting out daily articles that may be of worse quality. I also think that increased interaction with fans on social media can only be a good thing, as they can get feedback used to improve their content. I also don't think that increased subjectivity in journalism is necessarily a bad thing, with it providing an increased connection to the reader and making it more like a conversation, which I think is preferable to a report on a game. While the industry has changed drastically from newspaper columns, I think it has moved into a direction that makes it better than ever.