media coverage

It's like radio. So many options now (iPod, Pandora, Sirius/XM, podcasts....and on...and on). The only edge commercial radio still has is local content. Morning shows, afternoon drive shows.

Yea, I would not really want to be a full-time staff writer for any sports desk at this point. It's a paycheck, but unless you are addicted to it, it would just be boring as hell. And demoralizing.

 

So the practices are closed to all beat writers? I thought they just meant black tarps.

 

I read no access, but maybe that was just some twitter over-reaction.

 

I don't think there are that many within the readership that are interested in such a thing. The people that are go to specialized sites for it.

Doesn't excuse lack of knowledge, but I guess it doesn't matter, and I'd guess the average editor doesn't give a shit.

 

Nonsense. Football publications are enormously successful precisely because there is a huge market for analysis. Now I'm not suggesting that newspapers start writing multiple pages breaking down film, but they could include some insight about strategy.

 

people that read newspapers or free content are still different than people that would pay for fantasy football info, or indepth info on teams. That's still specialized.

 

They're still reading analysis, it's just shallow fluff instead of something informative.

 

they're reading stories about how awesome it is that the new defensive tackle is from a place whose name they recognize.

A little surprised you're suggesting the masses strive for more.

 

I dont believe the masses read much, if anything, Carolina Panthers (unless the headline reads: Panthers in Playoffs or Superbowl).

It's primarily folks who really give a shit about the team and those folks give no shits about fluff, imhmfo, and really want good in-depth info related to football, not how player X has a cousin who recently adopted a multicolored kid from Tanzania.

 

+1