Streaming apps, and answering the HBO question

An interesting note coming out of my media economics class this week. 

We’re talking about streaming TV, and I asked the students to list the apps they subscribe to (or have access too, wink wink). The idea is to think through the economics of this newish form of media. Not just how much they pay for them, but what they get from them as well. 

As an example, one student listed nine different apps they use, either through paying or sharing passwords with friends and family. 

Taking any student discounts available, subscriptions to the nine apps cost $63 a month. 

$63. In streaming subscriptions alone. That doesn’t even account for internet access (or any music services or anything else). 

This is the point of my Subscription-pocalypse theory from 2018

But economics is not the study of money, it’s the study of behavior. And so we’re discussing in class not just how much it costs to subscribe to an app, but WHY they do so. 

The why is important here. It’s not about how much an app costs but what you get from it — the idea of value. Is it worth the money?

I’ve made this point here before, but I’ve never heard it put better than the way my friend Andy Billings said to me a few years ago. It’s the HBO-Game of Thrones question. Does this app have one thing I can’t live without? If so, I’ll happily pay for it. It’s why people subscribed to HBO years ago, so that they could watch Game of Thrones. It’s why I’ll pay for Disney+, so that I can watch The Mandalorian. 

Those are the core questions to ask when looking at streaming TV - or any subscription media service. How much does it cost, obviously. But also, does it answer the HBO question?


How to end a story

We talk in journalism a lot about how we begin stories, the importance of a good lede, all of that.

We never talk about ending stories. There’s a reason for that. The typical news story, as y’all know by know, is an inverted pyramid. The lede is important because it’s the first thing readers see and has to contain the most important information, while the end of the story is the stuff that can safely be cut for space.

But in a profile or a feature story, ending the story is super important. It reinforces the point of the story that we’ve just told. It’s the lasting image that you leave with the reader.

So this is my advice.

DO NOT “END” A STORY!

“Moritz,” you’re thinking, “what the hell?”

Here’s the hell: When I say don’t “end” a story, I mean don’t write a big grand concluding paragraph. Don’t end the story with a paragraph that could begin with the words “IN CONCLUSION.” Don’t end your story with a paragraph that is out of place with the rest of your story, that summarizes what you’ve just written. This isn’t an essay, it’s a feature story.

So, for a profile, the best practices are either to end with a quote  that summarizes the story.

The final quote is sometimes called a stinger, and it can be an incredibly effective way to end your profile. A definitive quote that captures the spirit of the person whose story you told. If you end with a quote, do not end your story with the word said. My copy editor wife just made this point to me. Tuck that attribution higher into the quote.

It’s also effective to refer back to your lede. It brings your story full circle. So let’s say the lede was about the first time your subject picked up a golf club, you can end with a quote from her remembering that again, or picking up a club to practice, or something similar to that.

Deadline masterpieces from Chuck Culpepper

Five years ago, Chuck Culpepper wrote one of the finest game stories of the last 10 years on the Villanova-UNC championship game. I use that story every year in my sports writing classes as an exemplar of a great story and especially a great lede. 

HOUSTON — As a roaring basketball game in a roaring football stadium distilled to one final, soaring shot making its descent, 74,340 seemed almost to hush. The hush would not last. Kris Jenkins’s cocksure three- pointer from the right of the top of the key swished down through the net and into deathless fame, and all manner of noise broke out and threatened to stream through the years.

Villanova’s players surged into a pile. Villanova’s coaches hugged and hopped. Jaws dropped. Fans boomed. Streamers fell. North Carolina’s players walked off toward hard comprehension. The scoreboard suddenly read 77-74, and Villanova, a sturdy men’s basketball program with an eternal Monday night glittering from its distant past, had found another Monday night all witnesses will find impossible to forget. 

On Sunday, Culpepper teamed with Glynn A. Hill to write another masterpiece off the Gonazaga-UCLA game

INDIANAPOLIS — Just as one of the most riveting, pulsating games in the whole lunatic history of March Madness seemed bound for a second overtime, and just as Lucas Oil Stadium seemed primed to witness five more minutes of basketball of rarefied caliber, a Gonzaga freshman of an otherworldly smoothness breezed across the half-court line but not by much. He let one fly like all Stephen Curry. The ball traveled its 40-ish feet, the red lights squared the backboard, and the horn sounded.

Then it became disorienting to stop gasping and start figuring out the ending. Then coaches and players would greet each other with various levels of congratulation, consolation and confusion. Then the so-called losers of this national semifinal, those winners from UCLA, would trudge off the court with dazed expressions. Had Jalen Suggs’s storybook shot just smacked the backboard and dived right down to take a 90-90 donnybrook and tilt it, 93-90, to Gonzaga? Had the Minnesotan with a soaring future — and a present not so bad, either — really charged across the court and hopped upon a table to revel like mad while everybody else tried to process the thing?


Notes on Atlanta and sticking to sports

Three thoughts on the news from Atlanta: 

  • Sports and politics have been inextricably linked since the beginning of organized sport in the late 1800s. To argue otherwise is to argue from a privileged point of view that is able to view any kind of entertainment as a “distraction from the real world” rather than an extension of the world in which we live. It is to ignore the inextricable link between a certain brand of patriotism and American sport. It is a bad-faith argument designed to appeal to a certain political point of view and to raise money by politicians who aim to extend racist, sexist and homophobic agenda.s

  • If you have ever, even once, celebrated Jackie Robinson as an American hero, you have forever forfeited the right to argue against the politicization of sports

  • To that end, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, sports has helped drive social change in America, whether it was desegreation, the first Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement and the second Civil Rights Movement that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement. 

Writing tip: Show, don't tell

You hear this a lot in writing classes and tutorials and from teachers.

Show, don’t tell.

What we mean by this?

Don’t write that John Smith is a hard working player (or worse, don’t quote somebody saying those words). Write that he is in the gym at 5:30 a.m. every day, taking 200 shots.

Don’t write that Kate Jones is a team leader. Write that when a freshman on the team was homesick and struggling, she took her to dinner and talked with her for three hours to help her out.

See what I mean?

The point of showing, not telling, is to elaborate the story you are telling with details. That’s what makes a profile vibrant. They were specific, not general. Jeff Passan didn’t tell you Drew Robinson was depressed, he showed you exactly what he was feeling. Wright Thompson didn’t tell you what Archie Manning experiences when walking around Ole Miss, he showed you.

This comes through the reporting process. When someone says Kate Jones is such an amazing team leader, ask “can you give me a specific example or two of this? Is there a story that really captures her leadership?”

Didn’t get that in your interviews? No worries - this is why, when you talk to someone, you always say “If I have any follow ups, is it OK if I shoot you a quick message?” Don’t be afraid to follow up with a polite “Hey, you said this, can you tell me more?”

What research tells us about women's sports coverage

The biggest story surrounding the NCAA Tournaments this year has been the publicized differences between the men’s and women’s tournaments, whether it is the on-site training facilities, the swag bags, Covid tests, or the playing facilities themselves

I’m not going to call them shocking differences, because if you’re been around sports for 27 seconds, this won’t shock you. It’s impressive how women’s athletes are using social media (especially TikTok, and there’s a future research area for us) to publicize these differences and call out the NCAA.  

For our purposes here, what does research tell us about the disparity between men’s and women’s sports, especially in the context of media coverage?It’s no surprise that a generation of research validates what we all instinctively and anecdotally know to be true — that women’s sports get far less coverage than men’s sports.

In 2013, Cheryl Cookey, Michael Nessner and Robin Hexum found that coverage of women’s sports on Sportscenter and the three local news affiliates in Los Angeles was at an all-time low. In a 2016 study published in the Newspaper Research Journal, Hans Schmidt found that over a 30-year span, The New York Times’ sports coverage focused on men’s sports 86 percent of the time, while just 5 percent of sports coverage focused on women’s sports — and that articles on women’s sports were likely to be shorter. Ronald Bishop found in a 2003 study that while there was an increase in feature coverage of women’s sports from 1980-1996, there was not a significant change in the percentage of the magazine devoted to women’s sports. 


Kevin Hull from the University of South Carolina found that women’s sports make up just five percent of Tweets sent by local TV sportscasters, that women’s sportscasters were less likely to Tweet about women’s sports than their male colleagues (probably in part to avoid being pigeonholed in their careers), and that broadcasters from smaller cities were more likely to Tweet about women’s sports than those in larger markets. Similarly, In a study Kent Kaiser published in Communication and Sport in 2017, small and medium-sized newspapers were found to have covered women’s sports more equitably than larger-market papers. 


Intuitively, we can guess at the answer, right? There’s the widespread belief that men don’t care about women’s sports. “No one goes to women’s games, why should we?” one reporter told author Mariah Burton Nelson. Marie Hardin, one of the most important sports media researchers in our field and now dean of the Penn State’s college of communications, surveyed 285 sports editors at newspapers in the Southeastern United States. In a study published in J&MC Quarterly in 2005, Hardin found: 

(1) Sports section gatekeepers determine content based more on their own sense about audience interests than on the audience itself; and, (2) Their sense about audience interest is driven, at least in part, by personal beliefs and hegemonic ideology about women’s sports

A substantial percentage of editors have beliefs about women that would justify excluding them from coverage. 

A substantial percentage of editors indicate some resentment of the law that protects women’s sports. 

But beyond both the casual and institutionalized sexism, media sociology can tell us why these inequities persist. In a landmark study from 1986 in Sociology of Sport, Nancy Theberge and Alan Cronk found that the routine practices of sports journalism are set in a way that they favor men’s sports coverage.

“In casting the news net, journalists seek subjects that are both deemed newsworthy and able to provide reliable and accessible news material. The advantage enjoyed by men’s sports lies in the assumption of greater public interest and the greater resources of men’s commercial sports that guarantee preferred access to the media.” 


In a fascinating study for Communication and Sport in 2017, Merryn Sherwood, Angela Osborne, Matthew Nicholson, and Emma Sherry studied newspapers in Australia that covered women’s sports more than their competitors did. The authors found three factors of newswork that have led to the lack of coverage of women’s sports — the male-dominated sports newsroom, ingrained assumptions about readership, and the systematic, repetitive nature of sports news. By making small changes to these factors - notably, by assigning a beat writer to women’s sports specifically (instead of having women’s sports be the thing that the reporter covering men’s sports does when things are slow) increased coverage of women’s sports by leveraging the routines of journalism.

This essay first appeared in the Sports Media Guy newsletter. You can subscribe for free here

The three biggest challenges facing sports journalism

For my money, these are the three biggest challenges facing sports journalism in 2021 and beyond:

  1. The economic future of the industry. How should sports journalism be funded, and how can it realistically happen?

  2. The diversity of our field. This is still an overwhelmingly white man’s world, and that’s not good. 

  3. What should sports journalism look like? Was normalizing online media to our journalistic norms the smart move, and what should stories/coverage look like in the future?

Commonplace Book #3: Stanley Woodward on baseball writers

>The most expert and treasured contributor to the sports page, in his view, was the baseball writer. The circulation people had told him that 25 percent of the paper’s sales were attributable to the sports pages, which was why they were allotted as much as 15 percent of the total daily news hole, and the biggest reader attractions were the coverage of, in order, baseball, football, and boxing; thus, a good baseball writer was “worth more to a paper perhaps than anyone else.”

-Richard Kluger, “The Paper: The Life and Death of the New York Herald Tribune”

ESPN+ and feature writers behind a paywall

From Greg Dool at Digiday.

>“We felt that this group of people would drive additional subscriptions, while also making existing subscribers happier and more engaged,” said ESPN vp of digital content Nate Ravitz.

>ESPN wouldn’t say how many new subscribers can be attributed to the repositioning. Ravitz says the company hasn’t seen much impact on traffic. “We expected to drive incremental subscriptions, we expected to see people who had streamed but not read start to read, and we’ve seen subscribed readers read more articles than they were before,” he said.

Read the entire piece at Digiday here.

Jeff Jarvis on digital sports subscriptions

On Sunday, I published the most recent edition of the Sports Media Guy newsletter, featuring our post from Wednesday about Michael Mirer and Jennifer Harker’s new study on newspaper digital sports subscriptions.

After I published, Jeff Jarvis responded on Twitter with a thought-provoking thread on the issue:

Research Wednesday: Reimagining the Newspaper Sports Section for Digital Subscribers

In sports journalism, when we talk about digital subscription models, we’re almost always talking about The Athletic.

But over the past several years, newspapers have started to rely more heavily on digital subscriptions as a business model, with some companies experimenting with sports-only subscriptions.

In a study recently published in Journalism Practice, Michael Mirer and Jennifer Harker interview five editors at a newspaper chain that implemented the sale of subscriptions to its digital sports section. (Disclosure: Both Michael and Jennifer are good friends. Michael and I, in fact, co-authored a book chapter on breaking news in digital sports journalism that is scheduled to be published this year.)

Mirer and Harker framed their research around the following questions:

RQ1: What are newspaper sports editors’ perceptions regarding this paid sports-only digital subscription for sports news?

RQ2: How do sports editors conceptualize this niche digital audience?

RQ3: How have sports editors adjusted work routines and coverage plans to accommodate a sports-only digital subscription model? What future changes are sports editors anticipating in response to this shift toward niche digital subscriptions?

While five interview subjects is an admittedly small sample size, even for a qualitative study, Mirer and Harker recorded some incredibly interesting findings that can serve as a guidepost for future research in this area.

The editors interviewed had a positive view of their company’s initiative to sell digital sports subscriptions. It was viewed as “a long overdue step forward,” and something newspapers should have done 20 years earlier. They viewed digital subscriptions as a way to potentially get away from the page-view, click-driven mentality they feel has taken over sports journalism. What’s interesting about that is they seemingly view that click-driven model of journalism as something that happened to them or in the world, not recognizing their role in perpetuating that business model through coverage decisions.

Mirer and Harker also found that while the editors are eager to implement this economic strategy, they have not “changed much about the ways their sections operate, what they cover or the type of work they produced.” The editors appear aware that such changes could come because of a digital subscription model. For example, digital subscriptions may change coverage of high-school sports, focusing solely on popular sports if that’s why people are subscribing (more football, less tennis). One editor said that the model “could change some story decisions by emphasizing content that helps develop loyalty.” But what does that mean? As Mirer and Harker point out, that’s not in the journalism code of ethics. Part of journalists’ self-conception is telling news that the reader needs to hear. But those stories may conflict with a business model that’s framed around getting readers to pay for news that develops loyalty. Does this lead to more positive coverage of a team? Fewer critical columns?

The subscription model could also influence the traditional beat structure. People who pay for digital sports subscriptions are probably big fans already - so are they willing to pay for the types of stories that the traditional beat model provides but are often free elsewhere? Mirer and Harker also found that the editors are having to sell and market their sections more, and “are getting comfortable with the notion that good content is not enough.”

Mirer and Harker also address the idea of markets and communities in their interviews. Sports journalism has historically been economic engines for newspapers but also a way to “build a cohesive local identity.” The idea is that Republicans and Democrats will come together to cheer for the local team. Markets and communities have always been defined geographically. But digital media changes that. Mirer and Harker write “digital only consumers may live outside the newspaper’s market and have only a passing interest in the newspaper’s (non-sports) content.” I saw this in Binghamton, when I covered the then-Binghamton Mets and realized that my most loyal readers and commenters didn’t live in Endicott and Johnson City but instead on Long Island and in Connecticut, and were Mets die-hards. As I teach in my media economics classes, digital media has changed our conceptualization of markets beyond geography.

The editors interviewed had mixed views on The Athletic. Four of them viewed the site as direct competition, and they aren’t fans of how the site poached newspaper journalists to build its own roster (Alex Mather’s infamous “bleed them dry” quote didn’t help). But they also see The Athletic’s success as validation of the traditional model of newspaper sports journalism. This tracks with what Galen Clavio and I found in our study of the “Why I Joined The Athletic” letters, that The Athletic positions itself as the platonic ideal of daily sports journalism.

Should I teach my students to write game stories?

This is the second week of my sports writing and reporting class at SUNY Oswego.

As always, that means this the week for game stories. I have my students write a Super Bowl game story in 55 minutes to give them a little taste of deadline pressure. We also walk through the basics of the inverted pyramid and how to write the basic AP-style gamer.

I’ve been a long believer in this. I view game stories to be the journalistic equivalent of scales. Before you can run a marathon, you’ve got to be able to walk a block down the street. Before you can think about writing like Wright Thompson or reporting like Woj, you’ve got to be able to start with the most basic AP-style inverted pyramid story.

As an example, I have the students read an AP game story on a random men’s college basketball recap. This year’s recap was from North Florida’s 10-point victory over North Alabama from the end of January.

But as I was getting the readings ready for my class, I saw this tagline on the story:

This was generated by Automated Insights, http://www.automatedinsights.com/ap, using data from STATS LLC, https://www.stats.com

This recap wasn’t written by a person. It was written by a computer program.

This is not new, of course. The AP has been doing this since 2018 now, using Wordsmith an AI-like program to generate these basic recaps. The idea is to free reporters to do more analytical, feature type stories rather than using their time on standard recaps.

But this drove home a question I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

Is it worth teaching my students how to write a basic game story?

I really do believe in the theory behind it, and I think that any and all practice is important for students who are being introduced to the craft.

But is it worth it to spend time teaching them to do something that a computer program can do?

Research Wednesday throwback: Sports journalism and sportsmanship

Two years ago, I spoke at the Sportsmanship Day Symposium at SUNY Oswego. It’s an annual event hosted by my amazing colleague Tim Delaney, and I’ve been fortunate enough to speak at it several times.

In 2018, I spoke about how sports journalists construct our ideas of sportsmanship, using the case of Canadian Olympic hockey player Jocelyne Larocque as the jumping off point.

Sports journalism and sports media have a complex relationship with sportsmanship. On one hand, it’s the platonic ideal — especially in the Olympics. On the other hand, sports journalists have adopted the “You Play To Win The Game” attitude inherent in sports as well. From the presentation:

Media’s complicated relationship with sportsmanship is at least partially responsible for our complicated relationship with sportsmanship.

Here’s the entire presentation:

Kyrie Irving and how sports journalism is changing

On Friday, Kyrie Irving put out the following statement (from his iPhone notes app, because that’s how we do things in 20202). He cites the COVID-19 pandemic as the means to justify his not speaking to the media. From the statement.

My goal this season is to let my work on and off the court speak for itself.

The obvious meaning of this is that he’s not going to talk to reporters at all this season.

Now, it’s easy to brush off statements like this from a guy who thinks the Earth is flat. But I think it’s a sign of a bigger problem to come for sports journalism.

COVID-19 is going to change how sports journalism is practiced in the U.S.

That’s a very real fear among sports journalists. In talking to many of them, informally, over the past few months, that’s a common theme and a fear. That teams are going to seize on COVID-19, on the social-distancing requirements that have become necessary and common, and use them to take player access away permanently.

During the pandemic, sports journalists are conducting post-game interviews via Zoom, rather than seeking out players in the locker room. This is necessary, and everyone understands the situation. But there’s a real fear among reporters that once the pandemic is behind us, that teams will continue this practice rather than go back to the way it was in the BeforeTimes.

We can have a long discussion about whether or not sports journalists should value access to sources as much as they do. But that’s a separate discussion from this. The fact is, access to sources is important to sports journalists. Two generations worth of media sociology research has demonstrated the importance of access to sources in American journalism, and that holds true in sports journalism as well.

So as we begin to unpack the impact that COVID-19 is having on our little corner of the world here, it’s important to start here. That to sports journalists, being forced to do interviews by Zoom, not having the ability to have one-on-one conversations, of players and coaches being able to put out statements from their iPhones rather than being transparent and accountable to fans and the public is a fundamental retelling in how they do their jobs.

"Our jobs will be forever different"

Thoughts on sports journalism in the age of COVID-19, from Matthew Fairburn of The Athletic:

I’ve thought about this question a lot for obvious reasons. Our jobs will be forever different, but I do expect some elements of the job to return. I’d be shocked if we don’t get in-person interviews back in some form. There’s no reason we can’t talk to people in person once everyone is vaccinated and the virus is behind us. We don’t know exactly when that will be, but we’ll get there at some point. In-person interviews are easier for the reporters, the team and the player.

The question is whether the open locker room will return. Every professional league in the United States has mandated periods where the locker room is open to reporters during the week and after games. I’m concerned that could go away in favor of a “mixed zone” like you see in college sports or the English soccer leagues, where players come out to a designated area to do interviews. The locker room always created an environment for natural and sometimes informal interactions that help build trust and relationships, especially during the week. It also serves to set the scene after games. Of course, there are ways to tell enlightening stories without that level of access, but I think those in-person interactions help bring fans a lot closer to the team. Let’s hope leagues see it the same way. Even a mixed-zone setting, though, would be a step up from Zoom.

My hope is that this further amplifies original content. I know it’s pushed me to think outside the box and find ways to get unique voices into my stories or tell those stories in different ways. It’s never been enough to have a credential, be on the scene and sit in press conferences that are streamed to the public. That’s become more obvious this year. All that said, I hope we’ll return to more in-person access in 2021. It’s essential toward developing trust with the subjects we cover and giving you a glimpse into who these people are.

Read the whole mailbag here.