A Shift in Sports Media?
I had questions. So, I started asking them.
 |
| Newspapers used to be the source of news for many. What is it going to be in the future? |
“I think what is going on with the sports coverage is the same thing that is happening to news coverage: all the social-media algorithms drive readers and listeners further and further into their silos,” Maxwell King told me via email. King is the former editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, chair of the board of Pittsburgh Community Broadcasting Corp., and author of three books. He gave me my first job after I graduated college as a freelance writer doing an area college / small college sports notebook for the paper once a week. I’ve been fortunate to have his guidance on my writing efforts throughout the years. I reached out to him for his perspective on what’s happening in the media.
“There is less and less of a market for old-fashioned sports coverage and commentary,” King said. “The market is for the kind of strident, highly partisan blogging and podcasting you see. For that reason, a lot of the writers and commentators have followed the market into these new forms instead of the old coverage and commentary that emphasized giving the reader education and perspective. Brave new world.”
I also took a chance and e-mailed Mike Missanelli to request an interview. He wrote for the Inquirer, eventually moving to sports talk. A veteran of both Philadelphia sports talk stations, 94.1 WIP and 97.5 The Fanatic, he now does his own podcast. He’s one of the biggest names in Philadelphia sports talk.
At first open to an interview, Missanelli was reluctant to respond after I sent my questions. It’s perfectly understandable as I’m just some guy with a blog. Missanelli said my questions were “pretty invasive” and asked where I intended to publish the interview. Before I saw his e-mail, Missanelli responded to my initial e-mail three more times. The first of the e-mails suggested that it would be easier to have a conversation because of the time it would take to respond in writing.
I’m not totally clear on what was intrusive in my questions. I did mention individuals, which I intended as context for my questions, and Missanelli did say he didn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. I apologized for potentially offending him and gave him the address of my blog. I had done that in my first e-mail to him, also explaining that I was a former freelance writer years ago at the Inquirer. Possibly there was some initial confusion that I was still working for the paper. I’m not. I also explained how I could try a verbal interview with him, but that there may be some difficulties in doing so.
Yet, Missanelli had already responded with two more e-mails offering some of the type of insights I was seeking.
“I would say this: sports talk radio in major metropolitan areas is always going to thrive as far as fan interest,” Missanelli said. “I don’t think podcasts have the same impact as live, day-to-day reaction from the fan base of major market cities with big time professional teams. The money in the industry has dwindled. I really don’t understand the finances involved with that, because I have never been on the sales side. I can’t explain why big media radio companies like Audacy [which owns WIP] and Beasley [Fanatic owners] are hemorrhaging money. But there has definitely been a concerted effort to lower salaries. Logically, I assume that radio stations can’t sell [advertising] spots like they used to, perhaps because of the competition of the new media outlets such as podcasts.”
While Missanelli replied to my e-mail in general as opposed to directly responding to individual questions, he was touching on what I was trying to understand.
“Many podcasts begin because it is an alternative [for people] to stay in sports media when their other main media jobs have been eliminated,” Missanelli said. “But podcasts are really difficult to sell on your own and I can’t imagine the independent podcasts are making that much money. Podcasts that are lucrative are only lucrative because of big sponsorships from mainstream podcast companies.”
The biggest name that made me really start thinking about the media topic was Stephen A. Smith. He seems to be doing extremely well, yet he’s doing his own show on YouTube. Of course, I did hear Dan Le Betard say Smith’s contract is ending and he is looking for leverage. But, in general, the money aspect doesn’t make sense to me unless all of these people doing podcasts are looking for deals with traditional media outlets. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
King seems to think it does make sense.
“Stephen is almost unique,” King said. “He is so sharp, so well-informed, and so pointed in his delivery that he stands out in ways that make him almost an anomaly. The interesting thing about Stephen is that, although he comes across as sharp and aggressive on television, in person he is charming and fun. He worked for us as a sports writer back when I was editor of the Inquirer. And I think his going for his own show just illustrates that a sports-writing star like Stephen is going to head toward the most impactful, remunerative gig he can find.”
Missanelli thought other motives might be at work. “I think many talented media go to podcasts to give themselves more freedom of content and fewer restrictions from overly zealous market managers and station general managers,” he said. “Those folks are constantly being hounded by the parent companies to cut costs because the company’s stock prices have hit all-time lows. Content in sports radio unfortunately has evolved more into the hot take area, rather than to spur intelligent and logical, yet honest, conversation.”
“Ad revenue [is] based heavily on show ratings,” he said. “WIP is trouncing the Fanatic in the numbers right now, so I can’t imagine how they are not making money. When I left The Fanatic, that WIP days part gained THIRTEEN RATINGS POINTS on the Fanatic. And yet, Audacy wasn’t willing to pay [former WIP drive-time host] Jon Marks much money at all in salary, which is probably one of the reasons why he left. Stations these days promote young producers to on air parts just to save money. These ‘kids’ clearly don’t have the chops, experience or wisdom, to pull off a great show.”
The biggest question in my opinion is . . . where does this all go? In other words, are traditional sports talk stations and, more importantly, news outlets dying? (Not just newspapers.) Do we just end up with guys doing their own thing? If so, what does that do to the standards of sports coverage or news coverage?
King seemed to think there’s room for traditional outlets and individual driven media.
“I don’t think it is inevitable that it will all head in the direction of individuals doing their own, highly entertaining thing,” he said. “After all, there is commercial value in good information, and there will always be a market for good information. In sports, if — for example – you are a bettor, you don’t just want some guy’s strident opinion, you want real, good information.”
Good information. That might lead to the biggest problem with the shift in media.
I just wrote a post about a couple conspiracy theories surrounding the NFL. I don't buy the theories, but I’ve been thinking about whether or not the established media should have a role in exposing the theories or possibly investigating them. I’m also wondering if we see more conspiracy theories (in sports and elsewhere) gaining traction as podcasters/bloggers become what people listen to / read. Is this one of the dangers in social media replacing or competing with traditional news outlets?
I’m assuming Channel 6 or the Inquirer, for example, wouldn’t touch a conspiracy theory.
“Yes, you are dead right: it is one of the major hazards of this kind of social-media impact on news and sports coverage,” King said. “I don’t think mainstream media – in news or sports – can avoid saying anything about these conspiracy theories because they have so much traction in the larger market. But I also don’t think mainstream media should give them any credibility. They’re crap. Just report honestly that they are crap.”
Again, Missanelli didn’t address my question specifically. But he discussed the issue of credibility with some classic “Mike Miss” commentary. “The era of sports talk radio has changed considerably,” he said. “I was in on the golden age of sports talk. Folks like myself and [longtime WIP morning host] Angelo Cataldi had come into radio from being newspaper reporters. We were savvy in the area of journalistic integrity. We covered teams and knew how to interview people. And we always thought our job was to make teams accountable to the fan base because professional teams held sway over the poor paying customer. We saw ourselves almost as consumer advocates. Now, you get young kids who grew up as fanboys and stay that way once they get on the air because they don’t have the experience to see what’s really up.”
I can’t thank Maxwell King or Mike Missanelli enough for their time and insights. I hope to pursue the topic of the shift in the media in the future. For one, posts about sports talk stations and hosts were very popular when I was doing this blog the first time. I also think it’s important to know where information is coming from.
As
always, get in the comments and share your thoughts!
————————
Check out more installments of this series:
A Shift in Sports Media? (Including interviews Max
King and Mike Missanelli)
A
Shift in Sports Media? My Interview with Jon Marks
A
Shift in Sports Media? My Interview with Harry Mayes
Comments