Media has changed along with the game of basketball itself. As time progresses, technology, as well as level of play and strategy, advances. In the "old days," people usually listened to a game on the radio or saw the game in black & white on TV. Later on, television stabilized as the primary way to watch a game - and for the most part, continues to be that way today. And at the turn of the millennium, the Internet emerged as yet another source of coverage. So I've decided to write about the past, present, and future of sports media - source by source.
Radio: Sports talk shows are among the more fascinating programs out there. Usually the analysts debating on these shows are smart, fresh, funny, and more entertaining than your usual NBA Fastbreak or SportsCenter. But the problem isn't the analysts - it's radio. Even with the emergence of satellite radio, Sirius and XM are fighting against the future. Radio is rapidly vanishing as a source for news (you could argue for music as well, but it applies much more to news and sports). Another problem is the time of these shows, which is usually during the workday or school day of their audience. And since there's no real form of TiVo for radio, a fan can't simply record the program. Conclusion: Unless radio makes a miraculous resurgence, it will only be used to listen to games if a TV isn't available or on the way to a destination.
Print: Print journalism has established too much not to get a mention. Businessmen relish the time of year when the Fortune 500 comes out. Investors desperately await the start of a new year to modify their portfolio according to Forbes investor guide. And culture-lovers everywhere await the month when Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People are revealed. But what about sports? Depending on what you subscribe to, newspapers and magazines are still read today. They serve as a good reiteration of what you see on TV or the internet. However, I still stop and flip through an issue of SLAM on a newstand. Sports Illustrated still has some decent stories. And you can't miss the big, diverse issue of ESPN magazine on a shelf. The problem is not many people care to pay for a magazine when they can read the cover story for free online. I know I still love the feeling of paper in my fingers when I skim through a Lakers column in the Los Angeles Times as I eat my breakfast. Conclusion: Print journalism is dying a slow death, but it has left behind an unsurpassed legacy.
Radio: Sports talk shows are among the more fascinating programs out there. Usually the analysts debating on these shows are smart, fresh, funny, and more entertaining than your usual NBA Fastbreak or SportsCenter. But the problem isn't the analysts - it's radio. Even with the emergence of satellite radio, Sirius and XM are fighting against the future. Radio is rapidly vanishing as a source for news (you could argue for music as well, but it applies much more to news and sports). Another problem is the time of these shows, which is usually during the workday or school day of their audience. And since there's no real form of TiVo for radio, a fan can't simply record the program. Conclusion: Unless radio makes a miraculous resurgence, it will only be used to listen to games if a TV isn't available or on the way to a destination.
Print: Print journalism has established too much not to get a mention. Businessmen relish the time of year when the Fortune 500 comes out. Investors desperately await the start of a new year to modify their portfolio according to Forbes investor guide. And culture-lovers everywhere await the month when Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People are revealed. But what about sports? Depending on what you subscribe to, newspapers and magazines are still read today. They serve as a good reiteration of what you see on TV or the internet. However, I still stop and flip through an issue of SLAM on a newstand. Sports Illustrated still has some decent stories. And you can't miss the big, diverse issue of ESPN magazine on a shelf. The problem is not many people care to pay for a magazine when they can read the cover story for free online. I know I still love the feeling of paper in my fingers when I skim through a Lakers column in the Los Angeles Times as I eat my breakfast. Conclusion: Print journalism is dying a slow death, but it has left behind an unsurpassed legacy.
Television: Ultimately, the majority of fans watch games through their TV. This is mostly because there aren't many free ways to watch the game via Internet and radio can only produce so much imagery. For a long period of time the main way to hear an in-depth take on the latest NBA trade was through ESPN or the TNT panel. You could bet that Stephen A. Smith was working up a sweat about a horrible trade or that Charles Barkley and Kenny "the Jet" Smith were praising an off-season acquisition. But that was the past. TV analysis is slowly becoming irrelevant as fans of the game turn to their computers for a potentially more interesting perspective. Don't get me wrong - TV still has former players, coaches, and other personnel that provided great insight into the intricacies of basketball. And most blogs, unless they're blogs of a corporation or newspaper (ex. the Los Angeles Times does have its blog for online Lakers coverage), don't have the valuable access to players, coaches, and team staff - a privilege that the sideline reporters have. In the end, repeated ideas and irrational arguements from somewhat unamusing panels have caused fans to turn to another source for coverage and analysis...
Blogs: We are now in the age of blogs. While I see blogs being more legit in the future, they are a more a part of the present of sports media. Why waste time flipping channels if you think Charles Barkley doesn't know what he's talking about, when you can take 20 seconds to type in the web address of your blog and read a well-researched post? I usually don't give credit to the people over at ESPN, but ESPN.com - I'm praising the website not the TV channel itself - or more specifically, Henry Abbott, has written an impressive display of journalism with TrueHoop. And J.E. Skeets continues to post interesting headlines and episodes with Ball Don't Lie and The Basketball Jones. And the stat-obsessed fan never forgets to check Empty the Bench, which backs up arguements with the right numbers. I know these sites definitely make me feel like I'm interacting with an intelligent fan as opposed to some bald, retired "knucklehead" over at TNT or a biased sports writer at ESPN. And I can't forget about Freedarko, which has served as the sole liason between culture and the sport of basketball. Conclusion: The flaws of television coverage have been fixed with blogs. Plus, Halftime Hype was founded because just like the common blogger, dissatisfaction led to action (by action, I mean starting a blog).
Twitter: It appears as though Twitter will be the next form of coverage in the future. Although I find it somewhat annoying and uninformative, if Twitter expands to something more than just a series of status messages it may be more efficient. NBA players benefit the most from Twitter because as opposed to spending their meager free time hastily writing a care-free blog post, they can jot down what they're doing or thinking. It is a great way for the fan to monitor a player and team without having the media as a middleman. Conclusion: Once the NBA officially sponsors it and more players use it, and the site expands, it could be a unique way for the fan and player to interact.
So that's basically a round-up of the past, present, and future of media. I chose not to write on the exciting Bulls-Celtics match-up (Go Bulls!) because, well, everybody else had chosen to cover it and I didn't feel the need to shower you with the same news.
Blogs: We are now in the age of blogs. While I see blogs being more legit in the future, they are a more a part of the present of sports media. Why waste time flipping channels if you think Charles Barkley doesn't know what he's talking about, when you can take 20 seconds to type in the web address of your blog and read a well-researched post? I usually don't give credit to the people over at ESPN, but ESPN.com - I'm praising the website not the TV channel itself - or more specifically, Henry Abbott, has written an impressive display of journalism with TrueHoop. And J.E. Skeets continues to post interesting headlines and episodes with Ball Don't Lie and The Basketball Jones. And the stat-obsessed fan never forgets to check Empty the Bench, which backs up arguements with the right numbers. I know these sites definitely make me feel like I'm interacting with an intelligent fan as opposed to some bald, retired "knucklehead" over at TNT or a biased sports writer at ESPN. And I can't forget about Freedarko, which has served as the sole liason between culture and the sport of basketball. Conclusion: The flaws of television coverage have been fixed with blogs. Plus, Halftime Hype was founded because just like the common blogger, dissatisfaction led to action (by action, I mean starting a blog).
Twitter: It appears as though Twitter will be the next form of coverage in the future. Although I find it somewhat annoying and uninformative, if Twitter expands to something more than just a series of status messages it may be more efficient. NBA players benefit the most from Twitter because as opposed to spending their meager free time hastily writing a care-free blog post, they can jot down what they're doing or thinking. It is a great way for the fan to monitor a player and team without having the media as a middleman. Conclusion: Once the NBA officially sponsors it and more players use it, and the site expands, it could be a unique way for the fan and player to interact.
So that's basically a round-up of the past, present, and future of media. I chose not to write on the exciting Bulls-Celtics match-up (Go Bulls!) because, well, everybody else had chosen to cover it and I didn't feel the need to shower you with the same news.
Dope Jam of the Day
Daylight - Matt & Kim - This song serves as ode to daylight; it's a rock "banger" for the non-nocturnal party animals who just enjoy the illuminating rays of the sun. The catchy keyboard is probably the best part of the song, as it makes you realize simplicity can be quite serene. The percussion also contributes some livelihood to the song, especially with the well-placed snare hits. I've actually seen this song performed live. It was a pretty amazing, eccentric experience. While the vocals may annoy some, they have that care-free alternative rock swagger that adds to the effect of the song. Conclusion: For all the Southern Californians who enjoy the beautiful "daylight," just take 3 minutes and listen to this tribute to the spirits - you might even like it.
