(The following post was written by Matt Ufford.)The mainstream media's relationship with the blogosphere -- especially in the world of sports, where many blogs exist largely to attack the corporate hegemony of ESPN -- has always been testy. Sports bloggers see themselves as the leading edge of a movement, a revolution against the stodgy nature of traditional journalism, the future of sports commentary and reporting. The mainstream media (MSM), in turn, have largely taken the hypocritical stance of relying on bloggers for material while undermining their existence.
Looking back on the short but storied history of the MSM and radio hosts "borrowing" material from blogs -- from Colin Cowherd's notorious plagiarism of the M Zone to Sports Illustrated's quote-lifting from my own With Leather to (most recently) SI.com's Ian Thomsen mistakenly confusing FanHouse satire with real life -- it's obvious that if established media is going to rely on the blogosphere for material, then it also needs to learn established Internet etiquette for crediting sources.
As such, I'd like to invite reporters, columnists, talk radio hosts, shock jocks, editors, and all other members of the media treading the antediluvian waters of the 20th century to follow along as I provide a handy step-by-step guide to crediting blogs.
I. Understanding Bloggers
Who are these mysterious "bloggers"? Erase the tired notion of a computer geek in a basement: Technorati tracks more than 75 million blogs; surely some of those people must have their own houses or apartments. In the realm of sports, bloggers are simply fans who feel they have something to add to the existing commentary.
Granted, a majority of bloggers -- like most people -- are bad writers. Almost all are unpaid or underpaid (see also: FanHouse staff), and many choose to operate under a pseudonym. Taken as a whole, it's no small wonder the blogosphere has struggled to gain credibility. But good or bad, sports bloggers are part of a community that is almost always supportive of its fellow members, a community that bends over backwards to recognize the work of others.
Bloggers are also like most writers in that they crave attention yet are exceptionally thin-skinned about perceived slights, be they real or imagined. Thus, the supportive bubble of the blogosphere allows them to flourish, where links from fellow blogs serve as metaphorical pats on the back for a job well done. Naturally, when the MSM lifts a story, an idea, or a quote from a blog without attribution, this injures the fragile psyche of the blogger. More notably, it's shortcut journalism, a dishonest gray area that reporters should never even consider.
II. How Bloggers Cite
Sports bloggers are generous in their citations, much more so than any arm of the traditional media. Every major blog (I use the word "major" with a large grain of salt) uses "hat tips," which generally are links at the end of a blog post that allow a blogger to say, "Thanks to Blog X, which is where I saw this story first."
For example, let's say I post a YouTube video of puppies dressed up in basketball uniforms playing on a miniature hardcourt. If bloggers like it and want to post that video, they'll credit me for the video. Why? Those aren't my puppies. I didn't film the puppies. I didn't upload the video to the Internet. And the theoretical YouTube page claims that 8,000 people have already viewed the video.
So why do I get credit? Simple: because it's impolite not to do so. It's like telling someone else's joke at a party: after your audience laughs, you say, "Hey, I'm just repeating what Bob said." Otherwise, you're just the jerk who steals jokes. (This isn't just for videos, either. It also goes for offbeat news stories that bloggers dig up: even though it was written by some small-town reporter, it's customary to recognize the blog that "found" the story when citing the news source.)
III. Recognizing a Blog's Parameters
Blogs have gained an audience for the same reason FOX News enjoys such great success: commentary on the news is generally more interesting than the news itself. And considering that the world of sports tends to be a pleasant diversion from the gravity of politics or global warming, very few blogs take their content too seriously -- the media already has that market cornered.
The most common format for a blog happens in three steps: introduce and link to an article, paste in a quote from the article that fleshes out the story, then provide some kind of commentary. But not all blog posts are so formulaic. Often, with bloggers gaining a toe-hold of media access, they produce terrific first-hand accounts of events. Sometimes they conduct ground-breaking interviews. Sometimes they fabricate interviews for comedic purposes. And sometimes -- just sometimes -- that letter from Bud Selig's Doberman isn't real.
Why is this important? Because a blog's tone, scope, and audience should all be taken into account when a media member decides to run with a story or a quote seen on a blog (witness the Sports Junkies of Washington, D.C.'s WJFK falling for an obvious fabrication). The MSM should indeed be wary of the blogosphere's penchant for satire, but that penchant for satire does NOT give the MSM license to poach the hard work and intellectual property of bloggers.
IV. Putting New Rules in Place
The MSM's growing reliance on blogs as sources of information (watch "Pardon the Interruption" for a week and tell me the show doesn't have staffers who read Deadspin and With Leather) means that print editors and TV/radio producers need to reevaluate their current journalistic standards.
Take, for example, Ian Thomsen's embarrassing gaffe, where a P. Diddy quote he lifted from a Miss Gossip post turned out to be fake. Ordinarily, a public figure speaking on the record doesn't need a citation (such as post-game interviews or press conferences), but the way that Miss Gossip formatted her post, Thomsen and his editors failed SI's standards on two counts: they not only published a falsified quote, but -- had the post not been a Gossip fantasy -- they also failed to cite someone who had gotten an exclusive interview for a specific publication.Even worse was SI.com's correction to the story:
NOTE: An earlier version of this item contained a quote attributed to P. Diddy, which turned out in fact to be the creation of a blogger. My apologies to the readers and to P. Diddy, for attributing it erroneously to him.A blogger? Which blogger? What blog? Thomsen, like many journalists, makes it sound as if all blogs do is fabricate stories -- as if the quote had been accidentally pulled from some pernicious ether. Instead of crediting Miss Gossip by name for creating a wry satire, Thomsen undermines the blogosphere as a whole. And as for linking back to her post ... well, why would a media business send traffic away from its website? And why give readers the most information possible with which to make decisions when it makes you look bad?
However, SI isn't the only offender. Traditional media as a whole -- from the oldest old-timiest old-school publisher to the youngest beat writer out of J-school -- needs to undergo a sea change. The mainstream media's refusal to acknowledge its symbiotic relationship with blogs is not only irresponsible, it's unethical. And until editors and producers hold their writers and on-air talent to higher standards of journalistic integrity, you can expect bloggers to continue doing it for them.
