Pac-12 paid the Los Angeles Times
5,887 Views |
35 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by okaydo
Straight out of the weapons manufacturers playbook! And pharma, and big banks, and healthcare and big agriculture, and energy, and...
Reading the article, it's even worse than it initially sounds. First the P12 pays a management consulting firm 250k for a "plan". Then they pay 100k to the LA Times to get them to write stories about non-revenue sports teams in the P12. Whereas if the P12 really wanted more coverage, they could have simply invited reporters from a dozen newspapers to visit the P12 headquarters or host semi-monthly conference calls - although they would probably have needed to be conference calls about sports that readers actually gave a damn about.
I'm sure the journalism schools in the Pac 12 will address this - not.
Led by USC's Dean of NBA Inside Stuffwifeisafurd said:
I'm sure the journalism schools in the Pac 12 will address this - not.
I wish I could say "unbelievable" but it's actually totally "believable."
Not sure who comes off skeezier in this, the Pac-12 or LAT. Probably a coin flip.
Not sure who comes off skeezier in this, the Pac-12 or LAT. Probably a coin flip.
hmmm, steer advertising to the Times so they will run articles??
sounds like payola to me .. but that is so 50's
sounds like payola to me .. but that is so 50's
Waiting on the Larry Scott memoirs on how he bilked the PAC-12 for millions of dollars without having a clue how to do anything.
The CoCo Times and Mercury News weren't enough coverage?
Grigsby said:
Waiting on the Larry Scott memoirs on how he bilked the PAC-12 for millions of dollars without having a clue how to do anything.
He has been a disaster. I really dislike him.
Larry Scott is the Bernie Madoff of conference commissioners.Grigsby said:
Waiting on the Larry Scott memoirs on how he bilked the PAC-12 for millions of dollars without having a clue how to do anything.
No news on how bad he had the virus. I assume he is ok or we would have heard something.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Thanks LAT, glad you could clear this all up for us!
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
Still is just as nauseating. I would love to see the Journalism Schools of the Pac-12 sign a joint resolution of condemnation....Oakbear said:
hmmm, steer advertising to the Times so they will run articles??
sounds like payola to me .. but that is so 50's
oh swelll, more stories LAT non-subscribers can't read? be still my heart..
muting more than 300 handles, turnaround is fair play
okaydo said:
What is described there is what I would call a "paid advertising insert". Big brands (PAC-12 sponsors) have advertising budget allocated across a wide range of media and channel publications. In some cases the budget is allocated for a specific publication. A third-party, like the PAC-12, comes to a particular publication and says I have a bunch of brands who want to spend some advertising dollars in your pub, and we can provide your readership some interesting content that those brands also want to align themselves with. The LA Times doesn't care where the advertising comes from and the PAC-12's ability to seal the deal is valuable enough to the LA Times to take ad revenue even if they have to add a bit more coverage on the PAC 12. So the LA Times and PAC-12 agree that for every 1/2 page of advertising that the PAC-12 can guarantee the Times, the Times will provide an equivalent 1/2 page of PAC-12 coverage that the PAC-12 Brand partners are already going to place somewhere. Every paid advertising insert in Fortune, Newsweek, Times and other major print media are done this way. It allows the PAC-12 sponsors to meet their obligations to the PAC-12 and get ad placement in print media that they were going spend on anyways. The PAC-12 is just serving to direct where the advertising occurs and also align PAC-12 content with the advertising of brands that have already agreed to want to reach PAC-12 audiences.
Fire Larry Scott. Bring back The Berkeley Gazette and Nick Peters.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
yeahbut literally need a hail mary OD. wikiwiki grab..oskidunker said:
Fire Larry Scott. Bring back The Berkeley Gazette and Nick Peters.
> Peters started his career as a reporter and columnist at the Berkeley Gazette in 1961. He covered the Bears from the University of California,,,Quote:
Nick Anthony Peters (April 1, 1939 March 23, 2015), was an American baseball writer, who mostly covered San Francisco Giantsgames in his career, one that spanned 47 seasons (19612007).
He spent the majority of his career on the Giants beat at The Oakland Tribune and The Sacramento Bee and also worked for the Berkeley Gazette and San Francisco Chronicle. He was nicknamed "The Greek."
# go bears
muting more than 300 handles, turnaround is fair play
This isn't true. There is plenty of good journalism out there on respected/long time media outlets, especially in news...91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
Or in the ethics class for the USC Medical Staff continuing education.sosheezy said:Led by USC's Dean of NBA Inside Stuffwifeisafurd said:
I'm sure the journalism schools in the Pac 12 will address this - not.
re: The Athletic, the Bay Area coverage of the professional teams is outstanding. They have hired the best writers in the area to cover the Giants, A's, Warriors, Niners and Sharks. They do not have a dedicated writer covering either Cal or Stanford. However, their coverage of the national college football scene is terrific (they recently added a weekly column on recruiting). All three members of college football's "holy trinity", Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples and Bruce Feldman work for them. In essence, if you are a fan of a specific city's pro teams or college football, in general, this is for you....HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
(And besides no ads, no pop-ups - just articles)
All for $5/month.
Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the company that publishes The Athletic.
I second this view of The Athletic. I would add that it allows the writers to provide long-form articles, which have become a rarity in most sports publications.71Bear said:re: The Athletic, the Bay Area coverage of the professional teams is outstanding. They have hired the best writers in the area to cover the Giants, A's, Warriors, Niners and Sharks. They do not have a dedicated writer covering either Cal or Stanford. However, their coverage of the national college football scene is terrific (they recently added a weekly column on recruiting). All three members of college football's "holy trinity", Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples and Bruce Feldman work for them. In essence, if you are a fan of a specific city's pro teams or college football, in general, this is for you....HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
(And besides no ads, no pop-ups - just articles)
All for $5/month.
Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the company that publishes The Athletic.
Love the Athletic, but not gonna lie - would love for Cal football to get the same treatment they give to other big time programs with their almost embedded reporting. The only mitigating factor is that when there is a Cal article, it's typically penned by Mandel or Feldman.71Bear said:re: The Athletic, the Bay Area coverage of the professional teams is outstanding. They have hired the best writers in the area to cover the Giants, A's, Warriors, Niners and Sharks. They do not have a dedicated writer covering either Cal or Stanford. However, their coverage of the national college football scene is terrific (they recently added a weekly column on recruiting). All three members of college football's "holy trinity", Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples and Bruce Feldman work for them. In essence, if you are a fan of a specific city's pro teams or college football, in general, this is for you....HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
(And besides no ads, no pop-ups - just articles)
All for $5/month.
Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the company that publishes The Athletic.
That is completely valid for the game stories and how the beat writers cover said, but there is so much more interaction away from the stadiums and practice facilities outside of the game settings. There are more sports outlets/bloggers covering sports away from the games and many with direct engagement via text with the athletes (& their entourages)...plus many of the biggest "star" athletes are in the social media entertainment/influencer category as well.HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
The real challenge with the local media is that they all HAVE to have another gig to pay the bills and their resources are such that they can't follow the teams anymore. Part of the reason that they fill their stories only with the info coming from the group press conferences is that they don't have the budgets to travel with the team, to hang around the lobby/bar of the team hotel. The beat writers often don't even travel to the away games or accompany them on the entire of their road trips (baseball)...the days of the embedded writers "living" with the team during the season is pretty much over for the local newspapers.
With so much money being thrown at the leagues for broadcast rights, they are crunching down the pay for everyone else. It seems that ESPN goes through a purge every few years in favor of younger, less experienced "cast members" (they are owned by Disney after all!) and the quality of the product diminishes.
...and Mandel occasionally answers my questions in his mailbagLomiton said:Love the Athletic, but not gonna lie - would love for Cal football to get the same treatment they give to other big time programs with their almost embedded reporting. The only mitigating factor is that when there is a Cal article, it's typically penned by Mandel or Feldman.71Bear said:re: The Athletic, the Bay Area coverage of the professional teams is outstanding. They have hired the best writers in the area to cover the Giants, A's, Warriors, Niners and Sharks. They do not have a dedicated writer covering either Cal or Stanford. However, their coverage of the national college football scene is terrific (they recently added a weekly column on recruiting). All three members of college football's "holy trinity", Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples and Bruce Feldman work for them. In essence, if you are a fan of a specific city's pro teams or college football, in general, this is for you....HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
(And besides no ads, no pop-ups - just articles)
All for $5/month.
Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the company that publishes The Athletic.
ALL FOR $60 A MONTH!?!?!71Bear said:
...and Mandel occasionally answers my questions in his mailbag
Lomiton said:ALL FOR $60 A MONTH!?!?!71Bear said:
...and Mandel occasionally answers my questions in his mailbag
I've been a subscriber for 3 years. I think in those 3 years I've paid around $100-$110 total. I'm cheap, so I just find a way to re-subscribe at their cheapest price. The subscription lapses around the start of football season, so they're always giving discrounts.
That said, as a subscriber, I think I've read about 5 articles in the last year.* (I have no time to read articles.)
Meanwhile, the old Deadspin is coming back and charging $69 for a year. I'm going to subscribe to that. I'm not sure about The Athletic, but probably will re-subscribe. (The great thing about the old Deadspin is that it's the reverse of The Athletic. They don't have beat reporters dependent on people in power so they could raise concerns about shadiness without repurcusions.)
Speaking of the old Deadspin and speaking of USC homer Arash Markazi mentioned in the above tweets.
One of the great writers at the old Deadspin was Laura Wagner, who covered sports media like a pitbull. She'd go after ESPN, Sports Illustrated, SB Nation, Barstool, etc.
Now she's at Vice, where she co-wrote a really long article about what wrong at the Los Angeles Times.
The article included a section on Markazi:
Two weeks after that article was published, Markazi was placed on leave:
One of the great writers at the old Deadspin was Laura Wagner, who covered sports media like a pitbull. She'd go after ESPN, Sports Illustrated, SB Nation, Barstool, etc.
Now she's at Vice, where she co-wrote a really long article about what wrong at the Los Angeles Times.
The article included a section on Markazi:
Two weeks after that article was published, Markazi was placed on leave:
One other thing about the Los Angeles Times for those who don't know what's been going on the past few years.
In 2017, the Tribune company wanted to turn it into basically a content mill. So they hired this guy with a sketchy past, Ross Levinsohn, to run The Times as its publisher. He hired another guy as executive editor who's biggest achievement was turning Forbes into a content mill by letting just about anybody write articles for basically nothing. They wanted to apply that model to The Times. But then Levinsohn's sexual misconduct past came out, forcing his resignation.
That was when billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong decided to purchase the paper. He hired esteemed veteran editor Norm Pearlstine as executive editor. But as great as he was at stabilizing the trauma that the newsroom had experienced under the previous regime, he is still kind of out of touch as somebody pushing 80.
By the way, Ross Levinsohn now oversees Sports Illustrated, and that's going smoothly.
In 2017, the Tribune company wanted to turn it into basically a content mill. So they hired this guy with a sketchy past, Ross Levinsohn, to run The Times as its publisher. He hired another guy as executive editor who's biggest achievement was turning Forbes into a content mill by letting just about anybody write articles for basically nothing. They wanted to apply that model to The Times. But then Levinsohn's sexual misconduct past came out, forcing his resignation.
That was when billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong decided to purchase the paper. He hired esteemed veteran editor Norm Pearlstine as executive editor. But as great as he was at stabilizing the trauma that the newsroom had experienced under the previous regime, he is still kind of out of touch as somebody pushing 80.
By the way, Ross Levinsohn now oversees Sports Illustrated, and that's going smoothly.
HearstMining said:Somewhat controlled? I'd say completely controlled. As a certified Old F@rt, I recall when, between the Tribune, the Chron, and the Examiner, beat reporters would talk to various players/coaches either 1-1 or in small groups and write articles that were different in their content based on the interviews. Now, the formula is this:91Cal said:
With Google et al having siphoned off ad revenue, isn't this the way that nearly all journalism is funded?
No matter the industry (including politics), it appears that majority of content the media is passing through is produced by the subjects of their coverage...business journalism appears to be the most aggregious. Sports doesn't necessarily do this as they make the players/coaches available for interviews, but this is somewhat controlled.
1. Team arranges interviews with a player/coach and a group of reporters.
2. Length of interview is so short that reporters have to include all questions/answers in their articles in order to fill the page, and no reporter has any more insight than the others.
3. Reporters don't ask open-ended questions starting with "Why did you..." but rather ask "Did you do that because..." which gives the player/coach an easy way to answer without providing any real information.
4. So the articles are almost identical. What I read on the Chron website is exactly what I read on the Eastbaytimes website.
Maybe I should consider a subscription to The Athletic, although what's the value of sports journalism in a time of no sports?
I was possibly thinking of not renewing my subscription, but they're having a sale for $24 a year (ending today). So, why not?
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics