What constitutes as news

[Stoner]

All due respect, but you're dead wrong about fan sites in general.

 

I was talking about Sabre fan sites that I am aware of. You might be mistaking a true fan site for some of the pseudo fan sites that are out there -- the ones primarily looking to make a buck.

 

First, generally there is no one to edit or review the message board posts, blogs, or fan site commentary.

 

I would underline the word "generally." Again, I think the important thing is not generalize but to look at each source. I don't tend to see typos or gross factual errors on the Sabre sites, so someone must be doing a little editing. Here's AP, you know, the professionals: "In the shootout, Glen Murray lost the handle on the puck for Boston before Daniel Briere put it between Tim Thomas' legs." See, it cuts both ways. I tend not to see the terrible mistakes like that, or the totally fabricated goal descriptions (someone going top shelf, when it was a low shot) on fan sites.

 

Thanks for the compliment, BM, but I feel like you are damning me with faint praise. What are you saying? That I am obsessed with the slug, the thug and the sugar daddy? That I'm not civil? Well screw you. :)

 

SC, I live pretty close to X. Should I make the trek through the Allegheny Mountain to bow before this master and seek his knowledge and wisdom?

[Taro T]

That access has a cost as well. If you report something that is against the wishes of those who provide access, that access might not be there next time. For instance, WGR wasn't exactly the Bills favorite when Dickerson was on the air.

 

Incidentally, what news was in that article? It was very interesting, but the only news I saw was that it had been 6 months since Timmy got leveled. It was not a news piece.

Since 1997, I only read him on the internet... :D

Actually, one thing that was supposed to be "factual" in the article is in fact incorrect and another is misleading (if not incorrect).

 

The Sabres salary was NOT $29MM last year. With injury call ups, players on the IR, and the league owing the players additional money to hit 54% the Sabres payroll was ~$31MM.

 

Additionally, although the Sabres salary cap figure IS ~$43.9MM, their actual payroll is just under $40MM. (And after the players give money back to the league after the season is over (as I am expecting to see happen), the Sabres salary will end up closer to $36-37MM.)

 

I'm not sure where this fits into the discussion, but it is something else to consider. Actually, getting little facts incorrect is a huge beef I have with the D&C's Leo Roth. He writes very well, but very often (IMO) he gets facts (such as dates, quantities of a particular item, etc.) incorrect. That probably shouldn't bother me, but it does.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I am sticking to my guns that a fan can write an opinion piece that's just as good as something Bucky Gleason writes, and thanks to the Internet they both have a chance to be read around the world.

 

Well of course a fan CAN write something with a legit opinion. Lost of people on this board do that every day. The issue is that it is still exactly that, an opinion. When Gleason or Sullivan or Felser writes a column, by definition, we all KNOW it is just that, their opinion. if you or I post something, it's our opinion. My problem is that many of these sites do not present these opinions or commentaries as columns. They present them as news and people believe them as news. And putting links to them in the same space with news just reinfoirces this. The fact that they might be correct every blue moon, like breaking the Hasek trade on a message board an hour before it hit the mainstream media, does not mean we should just throw it all together into one big pot.

 

I've worked on both sides, in newspapers and now for an Internet company. (an Internet company that has taken as much ridicule for being nothing but fan-site drivel as any, I might add). And even though I am on the "other" side now, I believe more than ever that we DO need a distinct line between what is news and what is opinion and speculation. We need some sort of way of knowing what is an informed opinion and what is just some yahoo in his mom's basement giving his opinion that Jimmy Superstar looks like he leg is bothering him or something. All it takes is one of these guys to go off about something he knows nothing about, and it kills the credibility of not only the decent fan bloggers, er, commentators, of which you speak but even the legit Internet media as well.

 

I suppose it's just growing pains for the Internet, that it is what we must go through to earn respect as legitimate media. But I do believe it must be earned, and just because someone CAN post an opinion doesn't put them on par with people cover the teams every day. It's not that they are better or worse, it's just that they are different, and we should not let that line blur too much.

[X. Benedict]

 

SC, I live pretty close to X. Should I make the trek through the Allegheny Mountain to bow before this master and seek his knowledge and wisdom?

 

Wisdom? I know stuff like the PH of acid free paper. Not wisdom. I also learn a lot from beer labels and hockey cards. Sherpas are not wisdom figures, but human beasts of burden. My mission is to start the SE asian hockey league: SEAHL and to manage the Kathmandu Bob Segers.

[Bmwolf21]

I tend not to see the terrible mistakes like that, or the totally fabricated goal descriptions (someone going top shelf, when it was a low shot) on fan sites.

As I am sure BTP can attest, when you work in the media, you tend to pick up on those kind of mistakes, regardless of who makes them. I don't know if some writers hide behind the anonymity of the AP byline or what, but I can tell you that when my name goes in the byline, I am borderline obsessive about making sure it's right and accurate. Having to defend a piece you have written is never fun... :angry:

 

Thanks for the compliment, BM, but I feel like you are damning me with faint praise. What are you saying? That I am obsessed with the slug, the thug and the sugar daddy? That I'm not civil? Well screw you. :)

Well given the amount of "window-licking" I have been watching over at TSW, I was going to say that it was a refreshing change of pace to see a somewhat intelligent debate on a new topic. But you went and ruined it, jerkwad. :nana:

 

Well of course a fan CAN write something with a legit opinion. Lost of people on this board do that every day. The issue is that it is still exactly that, an opinion. When Gleason or Sullivan or Felser writes a column, by definition, we all KNOW it is just that, their opinion. if you or I post something, it's our opinion. My problem is that many of these sites do not present these opinions or commentaries as columns. They present them as news and people believe them as news. And putting links to them in the same space with news just reinfoirces this. The fact that they might be correct every blue moon, like breaking the Hasek trade on a message board an hour before it hit the mainstream media, does not mean we should just throw it all together into one big pot.

 

I've worked on both sides, in newspapers and now for an Internet company. (an Internet company that has taken as much ridicule for being nothing but fan-site drivel as any, I might add). And even though I am on the "other" side now, I believe more than ever that we DO need a distinct line between what is news and what is opinion and speculation. We need some sort of way of knowing what is an informed opinion and what is just some yahoo in his mom's basement giving his opinion that Jimmy Superstar looks like he leg is bothering him or something. All it takes is one of these guys to go off about something he knows nothing about, and it kills the credibility of not only the decent fan bloggers, er, commentators, of which you speak but even the legit Internet media as well.

 

I suppose it's just growing pains for the Internet, that it is what we must go through to earn respect as legitimate media. But I do believe it must be earned, and just because someone CAN post an opinion doesn't put them on par with people cover the teams every day. It's not that they are better or worse, it's just that they are different, and we should not let that line blur too much.

Bingo. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the old standby of "what makes [insert columnist/reporter's name] an expert on this? He didn't play or coach, so what does he know?" But when someone reads in some online blog that the blogger knows a girl who dated Jimmy Superstar's ex and she told him that Jimmy was demanding a trade or he was going to walkout, some people take it as Scripture and want to know why the mainstream media doesn't know this yet.

[Stoner]

My problem is that many of these sites do not present these opinions or commentaries as columns. They present them as news and people believe them as news.... I believe more than ever that we DO need a distinct line between what is news and what is opinion and speculation.

 

You've made this point a few times. There's no arguing with it. Everyone would agree. But how do you present an opinion? Do you want a flashing OPINION OPINION OPINION at the top of the page? Don't you know when you are reading news and when you are reading opinion?

 

I would agree that fan sites need to be as professional as possible with fact-checking, sourcing, etc. when they delve into hard news coverage, which isn't often. In the final analysis, though, these are just talented fans (not aspiring journalists) messing around, trying to create something of value for other fans. So maybe we are asking a little too much of them. Even with their limitations of access, money, staff and the like, some of the fan sites still do at times give the mainstream media a run for their money.

[BetweenThePipes00]

You've made this point a few times. There's no arguing with it. Everyone would agree. But how do you present an opinion? Do you want a flashing OPINION OPINION OPINION at the top of the page? Don't you know when you are reading news and when you are reading opinion?

I would agree that fan sites need to be as professional as possible with fact-checking, sourcing, etc. when they delve into hard news coverage, which isn't often. In the final analysis, though, these are just talented fans (not aspiring journalists) messing around, trying to create something of value for other fans. So maybe we are asking a little too much of them. Even with their limitations of access, money, staff and the like, some of the fan sites still do at times give the mainstream media a run for their money.

 

The point was the links to them are being placed in the same space as working, credentialed media, and that leads to problems. It's not that i think the fan sites should not exist or don't have a place. But when links to them are placed in a section under "Submit Sabres news," among links to professional media sites, the implication is that they are the same thing, which they are not. So then, when there are mispellings and bad grammar and name calling and the like, people naturally dismiss the "Internet media" as crap. When, in reality, most of these people are not the Internet media, they are just "fans (not aspiring journalists) messing around, trying to create something of value for other fans." And that's great, they should just have fun with it and not be held to a professional standard. So don't lump them in with professionals.

[SCSabresFan!]

SC, I live pretty close to X. Should I make the trek through the Allegheny Mountain to bow before this master and seek his knowledge and wisdom?

 

Yes you should. the master is all knowing and quite the beer drinker!

[X. Benedict]

Yes you should. the master is all knowing and quite the beer drinker!

 

Thank you, my son.

[Bmwolf21]

The point was the links to them are being placed in the same space as working, credentialed media, and that leads to problems. It's not that i think the fan sites should not exist or don't have a place. But when links to them are placed in a section under "Submit Sabres news," among links to professional media sites, the implication is that they are the same thing, which they are not. So then, when there are mispellings and bad grammar and name calling and the like, people naturally dismiss the "Internet media" as crap. When, in reality, most of these people are not the Internet media, they are just "fans (not aspiring journalists) messing around, trying to create something of value for other fans." And that's great, they should just have fun with it and not be held to a professional standard. So don't lump them in with professionals.

Exactly.

 

One other problem with the idea of commentary/opinion (i.e. blogs & fan sites/commentaries) and the "line being blurred" is that it is blurred for everyone; i.e., blogs and fan sites start being treated as regular news sites, which includes media law and libel. Some day someone is going to post somthing that someone, be it the Sabres, an individual player, an opponent or the NHL itself are are going to consider libelous, and the fan site/blog/whatever are going to get the same treatment as a regular media outlet - they will be sued, and made an example of. IMO, just as there are people and organizations who have little respect for actual, accredited members of the media, there are others who have even less respect for wannabe journalists in the form of bloggers and fan sites. Since the average Joe Blow blogger/fan site writer doesn't understand the concepts of libel, slander and media law, they go about pushing the envelope with their commentary, thinking they are protected because it's "just a fan site or blog." Someone is going to slip up big, and they'll likely be made an example of.

[Stoner]

The point was the links to them are being placed in the same space as working, credentialed media, and that leads to problems. It's not that i think the fan sites should not exist or don't have a place. But when links to them are placed in a section under "Submit Sabres news," among links to professional media sites, the implication is that they are the same thing, which they are not. So then, when there are mispellings and bad grammar and name calling and the like, people naturally dismiss the "Internet media" as crap. When, in reality, most of these people are not the Internet media, they are just "fans (not aspiring journalists) messing around, trying to create something of value for other fans." And that's great, they should just have fun with it and not be held to a professional standard. So don't lump them in with professionals.

 

You don't give folks a lot of credit, I see. Wouldn't the domain names letsgosabres.com and sabresfans.com give readers a pretty good clue they are reading a fan site? So they can judge for themselves the source of the info.

 

Can you cite some misspellings, bad grammar and name-calling on fan sites? Are you talking about the boards? You're really losing me. And what is your definition of "Internet media"?

 

You conveniently left off the end of my quote, which went: "Even with their limitations of access, money, staff and the like, some of the fan sites still do at times give the mainstream media a run for the money." Because they do, they deserve a link.

 

 

Exactly.

 

One other problem with the idea of commentary/opinion (i.e. blogs & fan sites/commentaries) and the "line being blurred" is that it is blurred for everyone; i.e., blogs and fan sites start being treated as regular news sites, which includes media law and libel. Some day someone is going to post somthing that someone, be it the Sabres, an individual player, an opponent or the NHL itself are are going to consider libelous, and the fan site/blog/whatever are going to get the same treatment as a regular media outlet - they will be sued, and made an example of. IMO, just as there are people and organizations who have little respect for actual, accredited members of the media, there are others who have even less respect for wannabe journalists in the form of bloggers and fan sites. Since the average Joe Blow blogger/fan site writer doesn't understand the concepts of libel, slander and media law, they go about pushing the envelope with their commentary, thinking they are protected because it's "just a fan site or blog." Someone is going to slip up big, and they'll likely be made an example of.

 

Uhhh, yeah. And when was the last time a professional athlete sued a member of the media for libel? Let alone a fan writing on the Internet? Ever? Is Jaro Spacek going to go after lgs.com for naming him their slug of the game recently? :)

 

Given that athletes are public figures and the burden of proof for libel in that case is extremely high, I doubt it will ever happen, as long as the commentary centers around the athlete's performance. I would say in that case the envelope can be pushed into oblivion.

 

Come on, guys. You are really starting to reach.

[X. Benedict]

I like the letsgosabres site, as well as the Sabrerattling and welcome the links.

 

I have known hockey reporters in major markets and they were given hockey because that was the cub reporter of the sportsdesk.

 

Hell, Jerry Sullivan admits to no hockey expertise, but still writes an occasional hockey column.

 

If we link Jerry, we should link the others - who probably have more expertise than a lot of trained journalists.

[Stoner]

All hail Pope Benedict. Kind and benevolent, but he's got Marty Feldman eyes.

[Bmwolf21]

Uhhh, yeah. And when was the last time a professional athlete sued a member of the media for libel? Let alone a fan writing on the Internet? Ever? Is Jaro Spacek going to go after lgs.com for naming him their slug of the game recently? :)

 

Given that athletes are public figures and the burden of proof for libel in that case is extremely high, I doubt it will ever happen, as long as the commentary centers around the athlete's performance. I would say in that case the envelope can be pushed into oblivion.

 

Come on, guys. You are really starting to reach.

And you're starting to reach in the opposite direction, IMO - just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less of a concern. LGS.com naming Jaro Spacek the slug of the game is not libelous, nor would it be interpreted as such 99 times out of 100. But in other cases, it would be easy to cross the line from performance-based opinion into slander/libel.

 

Here's an example - let's say one of our more infamous posters writes a fan site commentary about the worth of having Peters on the roster. If he says something along the lines of "keeping him in the lineup is puzzling, given his limited skills generally have little bearing on the team's success, and that it forces the team to keep a more talented player out of the lineup" - not a glowing performance apparisal, but not slanderous. If he changes that to say that "Peters is a crook who continues to steal money from the team despite offering little performance in return" then he would be in trouble. These type of issues are usually solved by having an editor (and in some cases legal representation) review and call attention to any potentially libelous statements, and the writer can then edit the column/commentary to make it less libelous.

 

You are partially right that you don't see many slander lawsuits b/c of the burden being on the plaintiff to show harm; it's also because the players and team all have their own legal representation to advise them which fights are worth fighting without sacrificing their public image. Plus, a couple strongly-worded letters about toning down the negative rhetoric would usually scare a site owner into editing the work before it is posted or changing writers.

 

IMO, given the right state or the right athlete - someone like Terrell Owens, maybe? - the possibility of an athlete or agent filing a suit against a fan site or blog is very real, and all it takes is one successful suit to set the precedent. Then the fan sites, blogs and such will all start scrambling to make sure stuff is edited before being posted, and the post-game recaps, commentaries and analysis are all impacted.

 

Right now, in terms of the law, including media law, libel, slander, and even copyright law, the Internet is a Wild West of sorts, and eventually someone is going to throw the hammer down and restore order.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I like the letsgosabres site, as well as the Sabrerattling and welcome the links.

 

THIS is the heart of my issue ... we DON'T put the Sabrerattling links down with the "news." They have their own section, obviously set apart from the CREDENTIALED MEDIA, and rightfully so.

 

So, if someone comes to the site, and sees "blogs" in one place and Buffalo News links in another, under the words "Sabres news," the implication is that the "blogs" are just that, and the rest is credentialed media.

 

It's not a question of whose opinion is better, Jerry Sullivan's or some bloggers. We all have great opinions. You have a great opinion, PA, on this issue. (I don't say it enough, because I love to argue, but I do see your point.) I'm not trying to be a curmudgeon or sound ticked off, because I am not.

 

But there HAS to be a line drawn. Because otherwise I can start a site tomorrow called "Buffalo Hockey Report" and publish a "story/blog/commentary" saying that I have a source that told me the coach slept with the goalie's wife and I saw the defenseman punch someone in a bar and the Bass Pro deal fell through and the Sabres are going to play 5 games a year in the Aud wearing the old jerseys. And some people, dumb people, yes, but some people WILL believe it. I know this because people STILL believe Nolan banged Mrs. Hasek, and that Jim Kelly was a drug addict who found time to get in bar fights every week and that Frank Reich should have been playing because he was a nice guy, and hell, the Bass Pro thing has changed so many times people will believe anything. Now, I MIGHT know more about hockey than Jerry Sullivan and write a good hockey column, but are you still going to suggest that all that crap mixed in should be given the same treatment as a story in the Buffalo News?

 

Obviously, I am exaggerating to prove my point. You can say I don't give people a lot of credit, but I DO believe people can read things and make their own decisions on what to believe or agree with. The point is that whether you like it or not, over like 100 years, a level of credibility has been established by credentialed media that gives their reports a kind of "official" stamp. You know they didn't just make it up. To lump this other stuff in is to give it that same stamp, and that DOES have an influence when people are deciding what to believe. They are simply more likely to believe it if it is presented in the same place as a Buffalo News story. Call me a media snob, but that's just not right.

[BuffalOhio]

I can't believe there are over 40 posts on this topic. Who the hell cares? If I read something, I can tell if it's a fan site or official media. Let it go boys.

[Stoner]

LGS.com naming Jaro Spacek the slug of the game is not libelous, nor would it be interpreted as such 99 times out of 100.

 

And that one time it would be? Huh?

 

Here's an example - let's say one of our more infamous posters writes a fan site commentary about the worth of having Peters on the roster. If he says something along the lines of "keeping him in the lineup is puzzling, given his limited skills generally have little bearing on the team's success, and that it forces the team to keep a more talented player out of the lineup" - not a glowing performance apparisal, but not slanderous. If he changes that to say that "Peters is a crook who continues to steal money from the team despite offering little performance in return" then he would be in trouble.

 

That's not libelous. Any more than calling Lydman a bum -- he doesn't, after all, sleep behind the arena under newspapers. Come on, BM, I know you're better than this. I see the point. It's just a bad example. Of course, if someone is stupid enough to say that Jacques McHogoff (fictional name) didn't pay his taxes last year and has a gambling problem and is throwing games, they deserve to be sued. I don't see how that's an argument against... whatever you are arguing against.

 

Plus, a couple strongly-worded letters about toning down the negative rhetoric would usually scare a site owner into editing the work before it is posted or changing writers.... Right now, in terms of the law, including media law, libel, slander, and even copyright law, the Internet is a Wild West of sorts, and eventually someone is going to throw the hammer down and restore order.

 

A letter asking me to tone down my negative rhetoric would find the wastebasket in a hurry. Your comment about "restoring order" is telling and I think we're finally getting to the crux. But that's all I'll say about that for now...

[BetweenThePipes00]

For the record, I obviously feel strongly about the issue, but not because I am worried about anyone getting sued ... I just think it hurts the credibility of everyone if everything is lumped together. I obviously got a bit wordy selling my side ;)

[Stoner]

THIS is the heart of my issue ... we DON'T put the Sabrerattling links down with the "news." They have their own section, obviously set apart from the CREDENTIALED MEDIA, and rightfully so.

 

Now it comes out. :) While there's a lot of crossover between a fan blog and a fan site piece, I would argue there are big differences. Still, I have no problems with that being linked on Sabres Report. More people would see it, and that's the point. Maybe "Sabres news" should be changed to "Sabres coverage" or something. I mean, sabres.com is linked there, and that's drivel from the belly of the beast, hardly news.

 

Again, I just feel it's a moot point because it's self-evident what category all of that falls into -- mainstream media, official information, fan sites, etc.

 

But there HAS to be a line drawn. Because otherwise I can start a site tomorrow called "Buffalo Hockey Report" and publish a "story/blog/commentary" saying that I have a source that told me the coach slept with the goalie's wife and I saw the defenseman punch someone in a bar and the Bass Pro deal fell through and the Sabres are going to play 5 games a year in the Aud wearing the old jerseys. And some people, dumb people, yes, but some people WILL believe it.

 

Some might believe it, but when it doesn't happen, your site will be immediately discredited. People won't fall for it again (then again, there's Eklund). The market will correct itself without the need for anyone prejudging the content and deciding it's not worthy of a link.

 

The point is that whether you like it or not, over like 100 years, a level of credibility has been established by credentialed media that gives their reports a kind of "official" stamp. You know they didn't just make it up.

 

Not so fast. People hold the media these days in the same league as used car salesmen and politicians. The younger generation doesn't watch the network news or read the local paper any more -- they'll listen to Jon Stewart or some blogger instead.

 

Credibility is a moot point in this debate anyway. Fan sites don't try to report hard news very often, but when they do, it seems like they are accurate. When it comes to postgame coverage and the like, either the fan sites are accurate or insightful or entertaining, or they're not. Fans can decide whether they want to go there first, or the News or AP or the out of town paper. Credentials don't mean much.

 

And, yes, it's official. We need a hockey game to discuss!

 

I'm out of here. Great conversation gents. And WTF happened to Inkman? Start some crap and then sit back and watch the show. Bastid.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Some might believe it, but when it doesn't happen, your site will be immediately discredited. People won't fall for it again (then again, there's Eklund). The market will correct itself without the need for anyone prejudging the content and deciding it's not worthy of a link.

 

maybe so. I just think it is just as likely that THIS site would be discredited right along with that one. When the "market corrects" itself, others get thrown under the bus with the offender by association. That's all I'm saying.

And i could not agree more that we need a damn game. They should make the video of the 3-on-3 scrimmage at the end of yesterday's practice available.

[X. Benedict]

All hail Pope Benedict. Kind and benevolent, but he's got Marty Feldman eyes.

 

I prefer a gussied up Punch Imlach, fedora and x-ray vision.

[TM8-PL16]

there is an easy solution that is LOGICAL and there is NO reason not to do it...

 

Have 2 sections, one for actual news stories/columns by the AP, NHL.COM, newspapers, official team sites and one for Fan Sites (Un-official sites).

 

this is a way that no one can ever be mistaken for what they are reading and there is no logical reason NOT to do this. The sites are different by definition so they should be in seperate sections. Easy solution where there is no rational, logical dispute. Nothing is hurt by doing this and everything is gained (clairified).

 

only grip would be it makes the main page more sectioned and possibly too busy, but I don't think it would.

 

We already have an NHL section, get rid of that and make a fan site section instead. Then like BTP says, there is no way sabrespace.com can get lumped into the "bad" false reporting sites by accident.

[BetweenThePipes00]

there is an easy solution that is LOGICAL and there is NO reason not to do it...

Have 2 sections, one for actual news stories/columns by the AP, NHL.COM, newspapers, official team sites and one for Fan Sites (Un-official sites).

this is a way that no one can ever be mistaken for what they are reading and there is no logical reason NOT to do this. The sites are different by definition so they should be in seperate sections. Easy solution where there is no rational, logical dispute. Nothing is hurt by doing this and everything is gained (clairified).

only grip would be it makes the main page more sectioned and possibly too busy, but I don't think it would.

We already have an NHL section, get rid of that and make a fan site section instead. Then like BTP says, there is no way sabrespace.com can get lumped into the "bad" false reporting sites by accident.

 

I appreciate the support, but I don't want to tell Scott how to run his site. I have no problem admitting that, to a point, I was arguing for the sake of arguing. It's a good debate.

[SDS]

I appreciate the support, but I don't want to tell Scott how to run his site. I have no problem admitting that, to a point, I was arguing for the sake of arguing. It's a good debate.

 

I wish we had MORE discussions like this. Getting passionate, valuable feedback is very, very difficult. :wallbash: I beg people to dissect what we do, what is right, what is wrong, what could be changed, what could be tweaked....

 

Now, I take responsibility for what I do with that info - but I need to have it to consider it. Please keep it coming.

 

Since it was mentioned - is the NHL feed even worthwhile?

[BetweenThePipes00]

Since it was mentioned - is the NHL feed even worthwhile?

 

Personally, I never look at it, but I am on the net 24/7 ... it is probably great for others who are not ... it is one-stop shopping.