Blogs and Credentials: Part 2
This is the second part of a two-part series which is an attempt to bring to the fore the ins and outs of bloggers getting media credentials in the NBA. The first part, found here, was a list of potential guidelines for bloggers looking to be credentialed. It was partially an attempt to convey concerns that teams seem to have, evidenced in conversation with team officials, and partially an attempt to demonstrate that bloggers really do have ethics and a sense of responsibility.
Today we address the other side of the equation: teams and their officials who make credentialing decisions. This is a tricky matter for a couple of reasons:
1. Teams make these decisions independent from each other. There is no league-wide standard for acceptance or rejection. This makes it difficult to pin down a target audience.
2. I can talk to bloggers as a blogger, but addressing team officials requires a bit more presumption on my part. I trust those team officials reading will approach the matter with a sense of charity from the other side of the gap, as will I from this side.
Despite these inherent difficulties, the reality is that too many opportunities are being missed through misunderstanding. Part of that misunderstanding comes from lack of communication. Hopefully these posts will provide an avenue for discussion that contributes to the bridging of that gap.
To that end, in my view both the NBA and the online discussion worlds would be better places if all NBA teams and their offices understood the following:
1. “Bloggers just say whatever they please and have no accountability to anyone” is the exact equivalent to “NBA players are lazy, play no defense, and are only in it for the money”.
Some NBA players fit that description to a “T”. Some bloggers do also. But these generalizations are incredibly faulty measuring sticks by which to judge the whole. People who hold the NBA stereotype haven’t looked close enough to see Kevin Garnett or even a guy like Ime Udoka play. I wonder what the people who hold the blogger stereotype have actually read? The truth is many, many bloggers take their work seriously and feel great accountability to their readers, the team, and to conveying what they see as the truth. Bloggers may not have an official editor overseeing their work but those editors haven’t stopped certain mainstream journalists from printing outlandish things in the past. Nor does a program director stop radio personalities from spewing all kinds of tripe.
One of the common arguments is that a team has more avenues of recourse and control with traditional sources than it would with a blogger. Does it really, though? You can complain to the editor or program director all you want, if that columnist or talk show host is producing ratings there’s no way they’re firing them. Plenty of folks in those media have made careers out of being overly controversial and shocking. If your local columnist decides that’s his path to glory, can you really pull his credentials or his paper’s? Not a chance. With a blogger it’s simple. They step over the line or don’t follow the rules backstage they’re never invited back and they’ve lost all access. Nobody has more disincentive to screw up right now than a credentialed blogger.
2. Blogs have a distinct nature which is not duplicated by other media and cannot be duplicated by the team itself.
Blogs have elements of newspaper articles and columns. To the extent that they post YouTube clips and audio feeds they also overlap somewhat with television and radio coverage. But far too many people look at blogs as “Journalism Jr.” without realizing the element that makes a blog distinct from all of the above.
Quick…what do all of the following have in common: YouTube, Wikipedia, iPod, iPhone, PC’s and Macs, World of Warcraft, Nintendo Wii, Google, Ebay, American Idol, Survivor, and all of the spin-offs, clones, and genres these things have spawned? If you answered “User-Created Content” give yourself a pat on the back. And it’s no accident that these entities have overwhelmed the modern entertainment market. The capacity for user-created content is pretty much essential if you want to draw this generation of consumers.
If you’re an NBA team, blogs are your user-created content. They are written by your fans. Who else would take the time and effort? They are consumed by other fans who then add to the mix themselves. This dynamic does not happen in any of the other media we’ve mentioned. Nor does it happen when a traditional journalist starts a blog on the side. Nor does it happen when your team starts a blog from inside. All of those latter forms of output are fantastic in their own way, but none of them duplicate the viral popularity of a well-run blog.
If you read over the list of entertainment titans above, you’ll see that the user-created aspects of these vehicles didn’t happen by accident. They were intentionally planned for and supported. In each case the parent entity provided space and a format for the content to flourish. The wise NBA marketing and PR gurus would do well to explore ways to help their own user-created content to prosper as well. You could literally spend tens of thousands of dollars on a team-created marketing campaign that would not be half as effective as a blog being done at no cost to the team by a third party. How much, exactly, does issuing a credential cost?
3. The blog format can take advantage of credentials in ways that other media cannot.
Briefly recapping something said in the blogger guidelines piece, the unlimited space format of a blog allows for more in-depth coverage and higher fidelity in interviews and conversations than does the traditional media format. Your traditional media types have to get the most bang for their buck, interviewing the most prominent people and asking the hottest-button questions. The range of a blog is exponentially larger. A coach noticed my site-specific apparel the other day and commented, “You know what I like about dot-coms? When you interview with them they print the whole interview. You can say things exactly how you want to say them and they will show that.” He pretty much hit the nail on the head. For reference, here are a couple examples:
Interview with Trail Blazers COO Mike Golub Pt. 1
Interview with Chris Bowles, Trail Blazers Director of Player Programs, Pt. 1
Interview with Chris Bowles, Trail Blazers Director of Player Programs, Pt. 2
Note not only the comprehensive nature of these pieces, but the fact that they were conducted with people normally outside of the public purview. Every such interview makes the fans of the team feel more “inside” and connected. Which contributes to…
4. Blogs are among the most recession-proof forms of publicity available.
It’s a fact of life that the popularity of most sports teams rests on their on-court performance. When the team record is bad TV ratings, newspaper buys, and ticket sales generally sink. Nothing will completely buck this trend but blogs tend to remain buoyant even in bad weather. The reason is simple: whether they’re celebrating or complaining, playing armchair point guard on the 60-22 team or armchair GM on the 22-60 squad, people love to talk. No other media offer the kind of passionate (for better or worse) interaction that a blog does, 365 days a year, rain or shine. Which leads us to…
5. Blogs sell tickets and generate viewers.
It’s an audacious claim, one which I can only support anecdotally at this point as I don’t believe any studies have been done. Nevertheless ticket sales for events thrown by Golden State of Mind have drawn hundreds and our own readers filled up most of a section at the Rose Garden on Blazersedge night last year. But that’s only the crass, direct dynamic. Blogs also generate sales and ratings by connecting people. Interviews and articles are certainly one vehicle but basic human nature plays a part here too. If somebody makes an assertion about the team, which routinely happens on blogs, they have incentive to tune in to see if their assertion proves true. Everyone who made the counter-point does too. Connectivity equals interest and interest equals viewership.
6. Agreement or disagreement with assertions made in a blog are not the best criteria to judge its worthiness.
One of the common reactions to blogs from insiders is, “They don’t really know what they’re talking about.” On one level this could be an argument for credentialing, to give a better view and thus generate better analysis. But even leaving that aside, the old adage that all publicity is good publicity holds true here. Most bloggers know there are gaps in their knowledge. Those gaps simply leave room for more discussion and debate. More discussion and debate are the key to prosperity not only for the blog but for the team it covers.
7. “There are no means to differentiate between blogs” and “If we credential one we have to credential them all” are poor excuses for ignoring the potential of blog-generated publicity.
Apologies for being blunt, but these have the ring of excuses used to dismiss the entire medium. If differentiation within a medium is impossible, why can’t any Joe run a newsletter in his basement and get a print pass, or any guy with a digital camera get a photography credential?
There are multiple metrics to measure the effectiveness of a blog. Popularity is an obvious one. Citations in other forms of media is another. Size and vibrancy of the community surrounding the blog works also. Tenure and frequency of posting vary from site to site (longer and more being better in general). The instinctive measure is also one of the best: You know the culture of your organization. Do this writing and this community seem congruent with that culture? When you read the work do you get the sense that this blog represents something integral and good about your team, its history, its fan base, and its passion? Granted that’s a subjective call, but bloggers deal with subjectivity every day, as do public relations and marketing people. It’s not a huge stretch from “Do you like that ad slogan?” to “Does this blog appeal?” It’s imperfect maybe, but better than nothing.
8. Blogs reflect a team’s fan base, and as such it’s incumbent upon the organization to be aware of them.
There was a time when any blogger would have been delighted to catch the attention of someone within the team hierarchy. Those days are passing quickly. This blog alone has had 450,000 visits and 1,500,000 page views since the season ended. That’s in the off-season, for a small-market team that finished out of the playoffs at 41-41 and drafted 13th. Increase that traffic with the advent of the new season and multiply it by the total number of blogs out there and you start seeing the scope of this medium. I would venture to say at this point that if a team has nobody assigned to follow what is going on in its online orbit something is wrong. If eyeballs are scanning team-related material 1,500,000 times in three months at least one pair of those eyeballs should reside in the head of somebody from the marketing or PR department.
This doesn’t have to be a complex process. First of all, if a blog has grown big enough you will have heard of it. You don’t exactly have to look on the 127th page of a Google search to find your guys. If a name starts popping up in the online version of your local papers or on the radio or in print elsewhere, check it out. Bookmark the ones that look interesting. Then once a week scan through the main page of the blog. Look for the attributes that are most valuable to you. You don’t have to read every word to get a feel for the site. If it’s interesting and shows promise develop a set of criteria under which you would credential an online source and see if this blog meets them. Yes, it’s a time investment at first, but it’s also a repeatable process and the potential dividends could make the effort well worth it.
9. Where did the “credentials are forever” idea come from?
There seems to be a sentiment about credentialing bloggers that once it’s done, it’s done…like letting termites into your house. Where did this idea come from? Teams are perfectly within their rights to issue credentials on a game-by-game or even trial basis. Evaluate the work that comes from those credentials in the process of your weekly blog scan. If it’s not going well, just don’t renew the credentials. It’s that simple. What recourse would a blogger have? If he flames you openly in his blog he’s cutting his own throat, alienating you and half of his readership. Plus he’s broadcast his failure for all to see. Very few people with any kind of track record of decency would do that in any case. And even if they did, there are almost no lasting negative effects of a relationship that doesn’t work. The lasting positive effects of a relationship that does work are farther reaching.
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that online journalism in some form or another is the wave of the future. It’s become the wave of the present in politics and entertainment. One wonders how far behind sports is. It behooves teams and writers to get together early on this and begin to understand each others’ needs and boundaries. Some frank discussion would help.
If any team officials would like to chew the fat over some of these issues or hear about our credentialing experience feel free to e-mail me from your team-based address. I will be happy to discuss these matters via e-mail or phone.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
1 recs |
34 comments
Comments
You've put together...
...a great argument for credentialing, Dave but I have this one, nagging thought: once credentialed, wouldn’t that status hang over one’s head, swaying one’s objectivity – even to the slightest degree? The pressure to adhere to the guidelines, in order to maintain the credentials would eventually make MOST bloggers simply hirelings.
If anyone could pull it off, I think it would be you, Dave as you’ve demonstrated your integrity on this site many times. But there are others out there who would bend under that weight and sacrifice principle to the company line.
Ben, nothing personal but the jury’s still out on you. So far, so good (feel the heat). The track record just isn’t long enough yet. I do trust Dave’s endorsement of you. ( I’m smiling)
You didn’t formally solicit opinions on this but this is my two cents anyway.
Hope you get some response from team officials.
by Dr Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
i can't win
"You'd rather say 'whoa' than 'giddyup.'" ~ Dean Demopoulos
by Ben. on
Jul 28, 2008 9:04 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure I agree
and I’m having a terrible time explaining why. (write, delete, write, delete…) So instead of trying to form sentences I’ll write brief notations. Credentials in Dave’s scenario means having a track record. Therefore Blogger already adheres to guidelines so no change necessary to continue to do so. Not sure how continuing to adhere to guidelines equals becoming hireling. If teams change standards away from Dave’s then bloggers opt out of credentialing to continue their observations in their way or they do become hirelings … and much less “powerful”. If Dave were to opt out (which I think he would if the standards became too restrictive) he would be a very strong outside voice once again and the team would suffer much alienation from fans.
If a blog wanted to continue with access and ability to speak freely, then (for example) Ben could become credentialed and write the party line while Dave could speak his mind.
Or something of the sort.
"We, as Blazer fans, are perhaps the luckiest fans in the league."-Idog1976, July 19.
by jorga on
Jul 28, 2008 10:13 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Cool For Ben!!
He has stated for quite some time that he wanted to be a “Corporate Stooge” when grew up.
THIS IS A JOKE!
Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)
by 92wastheyear on
Jul 28, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Vagueness on my part, Jorga...
...in response to your question
Not sure how continuing to adhere to guidelines equals becoming hireling…
I was thinking ahead to a hypothetical situation where, for example, Blogger might not ask the hardball question for fear of crossing the line and losing the special status. Some questions simply need to be asked (some don’t). To not ask that question or to sugar-coat it in order to retain credentials would be selling out, IMO. In the end, someone else will probably ask the question and the answer will probably be “No comment”. Still, this is where the depth of character and integrity of the blogger comes into play.
...and I suppose the original “nagging thought” in my original post came to mind because I know my own heart…
by Dr Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 4:10 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That can easily happen
But in truth it would probably not fall to the blogger to ask those questions as the beat writers and any national media present would beat the blogger to it.
Also to balance this bloggers, at least the way we’ve been doing it, tend to ask different people than the mainstream media does. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but those people seem to be more forthcoming on most issues and you tend to get more information from them.
Plus keep in mind that as soon as readers sensed that the blog had, in essence, gone “in house” the blog would lose the “user-created content” feel and they would jump ship in a heartbeat.
But your thought brings up an interesting point: How far is too far for a blogger to go in his or her relationship with the team? A few boundaries spring easily to mind:
—I would not print anything I knew to be untrue.
—I would not remove a reader’s comment or one of our posts because the team disagreed with the point being made or because it made them angry. (Rather I would welcome the team to explain their reaction and I would post that reply.)
—I would not respond to any pressure or inducement from the team that specifically referenced credentials as a bargaining chip.
As stated in the post above, credentials are a two-way street. We certainly benefit from the access in many ways but the team also benefits from our coverage, which is why the credentials were issued in the first place. If the team bothered to grant access in the first place I have a hard time imagining them wanting to take it away for spurious or nefarious reasons. We have never, ever had even an inkling of pressure of any kind from the Blazers to ask or not ask any questions or to post or not post any material. At this point it’s not even a millionth of an iota of a concern. We’re in the same line as everybody else in the media room and are free to conduct ourselves as we feel appropriate and advantageous.
I guess this is kind of the point of the whole post. I am grateful to the Blazers for giving us the access we have in the midst of a league where that cannot be taken for granted. They are a great organization as far as we’ve seen. But even among the comments here on our own blog there seems to be an undertone that it’s a gift or reward granted by them without recompense. They are not a charity. They are a business…a business conscious of their media presence. They issued those credentials in part because we have something to contribute and in part because Blazersedge belongs there among the Oregonians and Columbians and Tribunes and OregonLives and KGWs of the world. I am humbled by the opportunities we have. It’s as much as I imagined possible. But the days of accomplished bloggers being abjectly thankful just to be noticed and credentialed by their teams are starting to pass. We worked hard every day for that access and we have to work hard every time we use it to prove ourselves to the team and our readers.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 5:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dave and Ben, just watch your weight
Mark Cuban has already stated that the Mavericks locker room gets too crowded with members of the media. I’d hate to see that excuse used to exclude either of you from the Blazers locker room. Slim is in!
Asked his specialty in the kitchen, Oden paused and said, "Hamburger Helper and tuna fish."
by MiledAnimal on
Jul 28, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
All this stuff about blogs ...
... is navel gazing. Let’s talk about the Blazers!
by dvcastle on
Jul 28, 2008 9:13 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Is This About Permission to Enter
the Board and Locker rooms … ?
I want info about Blazers that I can’t get on my own, so I’ll read and ask those who can gain access, in this case, Dave and Ben. If they need permission paperwork/certification to enter the team’s inner sanctum, then I urge them to jump through the winnowing hoops.
Cave Canem!
by Caveowl on
Jul 28, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A view from the process
I was wondering if Ben might be willing to share some of his experiences getting credentials from the Blazers for his wonderful Game Night posts. I think that some of the things that were discussed in that process could be a valuable addition to this series.
Was there some sort of interview? What did the team ask of you? Were they familiar enough with Blazer’s Edge and Dave to streamline the process? Did they make guidelines as to what you could and could not do with your access? An account of a successful journey to getting credentials that has produced tremendous results would be very interesting.
Also, not to forget, I absolutely love what you’ve done in these two posts, Dave. I hope you and Ben continue to publish high quality stuff like this for a long long time to come.
< /war >
by Diesel10 on
Jul 28, 2008 11:41 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Our credential process was fairly simple
When Ben came on board we contacted the Blazers. They knew of our work and had followed us for a while. There appeared to be some internal discussion, to which obviously we were not privy, but within a couple days they wrote and told us where and when to have Ben show up at the Garden.
The first night he was there Colin Romer, one of the PR staffers for the Blazers, met Ben and showed him around…where everything was and how to get places. This was a touch we hadn’t anticipated and we much appreciated. We were made to feel welcome right from the start, which is an important suggestion I’d make to other teams considering this. After that Ben was off and running and we’ve been trying to produce quality content ever since. Maybe Ben himself can add more.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 11:58 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep, this pretty much covers it.
The only thing to add was that the first person who I ran into, I think entirely coincidentally, was none other than Lance Uppercut.
At the time, although I wa a big fan of his writing, I didn’t know him from LaMarcus Aldridge. But he was a very gracious welcoming committee.
Otherwise I think we were treated like any other media.
Also we do request the passes on a game by game basis, which is similar to how most media do… outside of the major beat reporters.
"You'd rather say 'whoa' than 'giddyup.'" ~ Dean Demopoulos
by Ben. on
Jul 28, 2008 2:50 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just how important is access, anyway?
Dave, I must say I’m a bit confused about this whole credentialing thing.
Don’t get me wrong; I definitely understand the attraction. I’m sure it’s a great feeling to have your body of work validated by a team in the form of a press credential. I’m also guessing it’s a major rush to have the opportunity to chat up Nate, Brandon, LaMarcus & Co. after the games. And even if you get nothing more than free admission to the Rose Garden when the Blazers play, well who can argue with that?
So, yes, I can surely see why a blogger would want to get credentialed. I’m just confused as to why one feels they’d need to. Specifically, I’d be interested to read why you think that increased access to a team’s players, coaches and officials may be necessary for improving the quality of a blog.
Having once spent several years as a working journalist, I kinda came to the conclusion that access is overrated. Many journalists fall into the trap of believing it’s the lifeblood of their profession; that entrée to the inner sanctum is what enables them to get the "real story." Problem is, when journalists buy into this notion they empower the people on the inside to use the threat of limited access as a hammer. And that frequently leads to self-censorship on the part of the reporter.
If you stop and look back on the history of news writing – be it about politics, sports, business, whatever – you won’t find many instances of groundbreaking work that came about as a result of comments made at a press conference or an on-the-record interview with some high level official. Conversely, you’ll find a lot of really good stuff that was reported by journalists such as the late I.F. Stone, who got most of his leads by poring over obscure public documents. Moreover, he believed that over-reliance on "inside sources" had a subtly corrupting effect on journalists:
“Reporters tend to be absorbed by the bureaucracies they cover; they take on the habits, attitudes, and even accents of the military or the diplomatic corps. Should a reporter resist the pressure, there are many ways to get rid of him."
Now, I know we’re only talking about hoops blog here but I think you see where I’m going with this. For my money, you’re one of the best sports bloggers around. And much of your really good stuff was written without the benefit of any kind of special access. You were just a guy recording your observations based on games you watched on TV or up in the cheap seats; and the stories you read in the paper. I don’t think much of your work has really suffered because you weren’t around to hear Nate say "The guys have to got to learn to play for all 48 minutes" in person.
Finally, I’m aware that you spend most of your time in Idaho and so a lot of this is moot in your particular case. Nonetheless, I feel fairly certain that even if you were given 24/7 access to the team, your independence would remain uncompromised. But I’m not so certain that the quality of this blog would be significantly better, either.
by knickfan on
Jul 28, 2008 11:44 AM PDT
reply
actions
1 recs
Well said.
I attempted to touch on these points in a reply to the first of Dave’s posts, but I think you did it better. Just to add to it, and hopefully start a conversation, I’ll repost it here:
I think another critical question that bloggers need to answer is why they need/want credentials in the first place. That requires a close inspection of your writing’s motivation and themes. Certain people may not need credentials, and it may in fact detract from the product that they have created.It’s important to remember that Dave didn’t write this up in order to get all blogs to follow these rules, nor did he enjoin all blogs to seek credentials. If you’re a hyper-critical, possibly profanity-laden site (not that those are bad things; they can be essential), you probably don’t need player and coach access to do the things you do best. If you’re blog is a constant humorous skewering of your favorite franchise and players, you’d probably do better without credentials and the responsibilities that come with it or the possibility that you may lose the ability to properly roast.
Just because Dave has created a fantastic list of guidelines to help blogs get credentials doesn’t mean that credentials will even help many blogs.
< /war >
by Diesel10 on
Jul 28, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There's a yes and no to this
You’re right that credentials are not necessary to make a good blog. In fact I know bloggers who, having been there, have flat-out stated “this is not my kind of work”. As I stated in the first post of this series it doesn’t do much good to have seven guys getting quotes from the head coach instead of six. If you’re going to duplicate the work that’s already done by beat writers you’re going to be redundant.
The other side of the coin is that, as stated above, the current coverage doesn’t even begin to cover all of the bases. There are stories to be told that never see the light of day. Even just watching the game live there are viewpoints a blogger can take that a traditional journalist either can’t or won’t. Not to mention there’s a difference between seeing the game live and on TV which only a heavy, heavy dose of watching live games can help you compensate for.
Most importantly of all, just because not every blogger needs or wants credentials doesn’t mean that a blogger who has the motivation to do something with them shouldn’t get them. Some teams have a blanket “no blogger” policy. Some teams probably haven’t even seriously considered the matter yet. The point of the series is to open the door for those teams to evaluate the situation and maybe to facilitate a dialogue between those teams and the bloggers who cover them.
I think Blazersedge and the Trail Blazers are living proof that the blog-team connection can work and can be good for both parties while still retaining integrity.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 11:55 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just a guess but...
Credentials open the doors for personnel meetings. Those personnel meetings can lead to more in depth interviews like the ones we’ve been receiving.
Credentials provide access to games and if the bloggers are asking the different questions or more indepth questions then our coverage of events can become more full.
Dave would have to answer if this were true or not, or Ben, but i suspect that the Credentials can make other things easier and that it’s just one tool. I would certainly hope that no blog site saw it as a Be all End all and any site that did… i just can’t imagine their readership lasting long.
Ford: Bill, you're claiming victory already? Have you had a "Mission Accomplished" banner printed yet?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624
by ratbastird on
Jul 28, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agree with all of this
on point
"You'd rather say 'whoa' than 'giddyup.'" ~ Dean Demopoulos
by Ben. on
Jul 28, 2008 4:13 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Seeing the Future
I’m a jazz musician and writer and I see the same trends happening in all kinds of places, including music. But the important thing is that you are highlighting what CAN happen when people in power embrace “emergent” instead of “industrial” ways of thinking.
Emergent thinking means setting standards but enforcing them and working in a very decentralized, nonlinear manner (like the internet). Emergent thinking sees humanity as a kind of macro-life form or organism.
Industrial thinking is the way we’ve been operating for hundreds of years: things are organized and controlled very tightly by a set of hierarchies that tie into a centralized system of control. Industrial thinking sees humanity as a kind of giant machine. Bureaucracy is developed under that thinking, and that’s what supports organizations like newspapers, which are about mass-producing a particular good.
Your vision - the future of how we will live - is about setting standards and letting everyone live up to them individually and as parts of numerous groups (like Blazer fans!)
A good book on this subject is Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software by Steven Johnson. Easy to read, hope a few of you check it out!
by kickbrass on
Jul 28, 2008 12:44 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Agree with this more than anything
"You know what I like about dot-coms? When you interview with them they print the whole interview. You can say things exactly how you want to say them and they will show that." He pretty much hit the nail on the head.
To me, nothing enriches this site more than the interview of personnel that you may not normally hear about. I LOVE hearing about how the scouting process works, or the thought process behind decisions, and so on and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I like the unique views of individuals and have changed my mind/stance on things because the sum of hte whole is greater than the sum of the one… but those interviews are so fresh, so unique, and add so much to my insight of the team.
What I’m really saying is: I WANT MORE OF THAT!!!
This information is unusual and rich when compared to other media sources out there. By taking on these angles and going for the in depth and unique stories that may not fit into the five second sound bite, this blog stands out as a must read for any blazer fan.
‘Teams should jump at the opportunity to educate its fan base. Such attempts can humanize the organization and provide fans with information/material that helps keep it in tuned particularly during the slow summers when there isn’t really any new news.
Ford: Bill, you're claiming victory already? Have you had a "Mission Accomplished" banner printed yet?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624
by ratbastird on
Jul 28, 2008 2:10 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed +1
I remember the good old days. The Rasta Monsta days.
by GreatOden'sRaven on
Jul 28, 2008 2:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dave
How much do comments affect the way an executive would look at a blog? I ask because while a blogger may have topical, relevant and insightful work, the comments on the site may be vulgar (without being vulgar, ie trash talking w/no swearing) biased, ignorant and inappropriate for a team to back. In a case like that, a blogger walks a fine line between freedom of speech and of course moderating a site. If they do let much of it slide, how does a company like the Trailblazers justify providing a blog access (which in turn increases popularity) if it could put a black eye on the team? This is a very sensitive subject around the Portland area was we all know.
I remember the good old days. The Rasta Monsta days.
by GreatOden'sRaven on
Jul 28, 2008 2:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
It factors in
but I suppose how much would depend on the team and the individuals in the organization, plus maybe the nature of the blog. In some cases I would suspect they don’t care a bit. In a case like ours I doubt we would have the same respect if the community were completely sour. That’s the neat thing about the Blazersedge credentials…they really are a vote of confidence in you guys as much as us. People want to hear what you have to say and this is an easy way to get the pulse of part of the Blazer fan base.
Moderating has little to do with freedom of speech though. Good moderating, including some deleted coments and bans where warranted, actually allows more freedom of discussion and more people to engage in it. Sloppy moderating or no moderating often kills the conversation, as we’ve seen on any number of sites. A rose bush has to be pruned occasionally for it to grow to its fullest.
The people who proclaim their right to say anything they want are always the people who use cheap, destructive conversation techniques to make sure their voice is the loudest, if not the only one heard. Otherwise why would they need to fall back on their supposed right to say what they’re saying? Have you ever seen a comment like, “You make a good argument but I disagree on Point X because the statistics seem to point to Y instead. And I have freedom of speech so don’t delete my comment!”?
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I should clarify
that I mean “freedom of speech” as claimed in this particular blog-comment context. I am a huge proponent of free speech in the accurate sense of the term. The problem is most people vastly misunderstand it. Freedom of speech never meant saying anything you want to anyone you want anywhere you want. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a movie theater. You can’t walk into a kindergarten classroom and say, “Now children we’re going to hear the story of Goldilocks and the (bleeping) Bears who (bleeped) her (bleep) because she (bleepin’) stole their (bleep).” And you can’t come into a blog like this one and start insulting people or killing our business (which, in the end, is conversation) with your attitude.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 3:27 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that story sounds pretty awesome
can you email me the ending please?
"You'd rather say 'whoa' than 'giddyup.'" ~ Dean Demopoulos
by Ben. on
Jul 28, 2008 3:40 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ben, I know that story
I told it to my kids ever since they were little. Suprisingly …they seem to be afraid of the show “Little Bear” on Nicklodeon.
Homer: "Oh no!! A Bear is eating my father!." (On seeing Selma kissing Grampa)
by 92wastheyear on
Jul 28, 2008 4:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Or, they're terrified of vapid blondes.
"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar
by annthefan on
Jul 29, 2008 1:19 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It had to be you again. Let's stay on topic folks.
This is more fun than coming up with something clever to say.
by tominhawaii on
Jul 29, 2008 5:25 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep, that's me, the OT queen. Dave's gonna ban me forever.
"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar
by annthefan on
Jul 30, 2008 3:57 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is the Rowdy Fan on the BEdge
Going to be handled like the rowdy fan in the Rose Garden? Does the Blazer exec see them as relatively the same character? Thanks for asking that question Raven. Does Dave apply his blogging black belt similarly to the security guards in the stands?
Cave Canem!
by Caveowl on
Jul 28, 2008 3:09 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Depends on rowdy in what way I suppose.
You don’t have to look very far too see a fair amount of kookiness and even good old Portland weirdness here. Nor do you have to dig to find debate. Passion oozes out of nearly every pore. But some things just won’t be tolerated.
I don’t think team execs get that deep into the process when reading or evaluating blogs though. The overall result is what’s important. In general, I’d guess a demonstrated ability to attract and relate to the fan base would be a plus in credential considerations. You have to have some measure of significance. Readership and participation are two ways to measure that significance.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jul 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good Old Portland Weirdness
is a wonderfully apt phrase. Reminds me of the patrons locking the bartender/owner out of the Chocolate Moose and dancing exurberantly as he watched through the window.
Cave Canem!
by Caveowl on
Aug 1, 2008 2:09 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
















