Why do people still believe certain sports writers?

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by Reality

Not really. I have had writers tell me before that positive articles draw less readers than negative articles. Most writers do their best to post both positive/fluff and negative articles to avoid being stereotyped as a blind homer or a red-eyed hater.

That said, reporting the news is not the primary focus of most news media organizations. The main focus is getting people to read, listen or watch their publications. It is the same way with television shows. Networks wants viewers and care very little about how they get them. There are great TV shows that get canceled and bad TV shows that keep showing year after year. All that matters is that people are reading, listening or watching what the media is showing.

[View Full Quote]Again, I don't fault them for it. If most of us were in their shoes, we would do the same thing. If you are a sportswriter for DMN and have watched them downsize due to the rough transition from physical paper to online and have watched other sports writers before you move on to ESPN or larger media organizations, you start to worry about your future and career.

With the big shift in readers to the web, sports writers are under a bigger microscope than ever because their employers can now directly track how many people are reading their articles. Those stats are probably shared with the sports writers so they know which kinds of articles are generating the most traffic. They are going to copy the aspects of those high traffic generating articles as often as possible in their articles. Of course they will continue writing the other kinds of articles as well for dilution purposes.

There are no conspiracies in my words, only the reality of being a sports or news writer. The issue is less with the writers though and more with the readers who choose to believe everything they read as fact when much of it is conjecture. That includes the over inflated "hype" articles as well as the overly negative articles.

/reality

Mrs. Twodeep3 didn't raise foolish children that would outright argue with a site owner.

But my point is this. Back in the day - 1992, and especially 1993 - the press fed from the troth of all things Cowboy. Outside of Berman and his cohort Tom Jackson, ESPN was foaming at the mouth over the Cowboys.

If Dallas again turns a corner and at some point has a team that is fresh and tough and winning like that team did, then the press will again be in the Cowboy camp.

The first season of success will still find people questioning the team.

But just like the 49ers now, that team would be praised and articles written heralding them as one of the top teams.

Win something, become significant again, and Dallas will see a rise in the articles that praise.

Continue down the current path, and expect people pointing out the shortcomings.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Mrs. Twodeep3 didn't raise foolish children that would outright argue with a site owner.

But my point is this. Back in the day - 1992, and especially 1993 - the press fed from the troth of all things Cowboy. Outside of Berman and his cohort Tom Jackson, ESPN was foaming at the mouth over the Cowboys.

If Dallas again turns a corner and at some point has a team that is fresh and tough and winning like that team did, then the press will again be in the Cowboy camp.

The first season of success will still find people questioning the team.

But just like the 49ers now, that team would be praised and articles written heralding them as one of the top teams.

Win something, become significant again, and Dallas will see a rise in the articles that praise.

Continue down the current path, and expect people pointing out the shortcomings.

Do you sir have the nerve to suggest that the negative reporting is a reflection of poor management and the result of a decade and a half of mediocrity that all but the blind can see?

Perish the thought