Pirlo Presser
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
In your defense you do have a more unbiased take/reporting then most and certainly more then people give you credit for. You do a good job of giving relevant and reports that end up being true. Unfortunately much of the soccer media are columnist/bloggers and not reporters. There is certainly a large amount of people who follow and want news with this club and far too many times news and opinions are intertwined. It is difficult to find reporting and there are far too much opinion pieces on soccer and especially with NYCFC. I am sure you might have noticed that a lot of fans have a problem with reporting on clubs outside of their fan base.... you're a reporter that's what you do... report news in this market.
That's all I figured you meant.
If JK provided a reaction of annoyance when the question was asked, that could be because (1) he is annoyed that Lampard is injured or (2) he is annoyed that the question was asked in that forum or (3) a combination of the two.
I vote for 3, but we will see.
You may be surprised, but I agree with a lot of what you are saying here!
This is why I try to make it as painfully obvious as I can that opinion articles are just that, labeling them COMMENTARY or EDITORIAL when they are up. For instance ...
http://www.empireofsoccer.com/ouster-demonstrates-approach-37720/
That has come from years of experiencing the same angst as a reader and recognizing (sometime last year or two years ago) that fans want to know what they are reading ahead of time.
As for EoS ... our bread and butter is reporting. It is 75% of our site. To say we are a blog is not exactly correct either. I refer to what we do as a "media destination." We break news, add opinions, feature videos, picture galleries etc etc.
What has been difficult with NYCFC is so much of the news has been bad, particularly in the lead up, so you get the "kill the messenger" effect. However, we strive to give all three teams an equal platform -- and sometimes that puts me in the crosshairs.
Regardless, I appreciate the feedback. I encourage it, actually. Reach out any time.
I've never been critical of Empire of Soccer, the only thing I don't like about it is the trolls who invade the comments section but that is easily ignored (even if it is sometimes hard to look away).
But, I wanted to challenge you on your opinion that most NYCFC news has been bad. Has it really? Aside from the Lampard fiasco, we have a celebrated DP in David Villa who is practically carrying this team, we have huge attendance and season tickets numbers and are still vying for a playoff spot in our first season. We seem to continually be the team that everyone is talking about (positive or negative as a Yankee fan I'll always take it) so I can't see that as being anything but beneficial to the league. And more recently we just acquired a footballing legend in Andrea Pirlo, another great move for MLS in general.
I know none of this is news to you but I think you saying that most of the news is bad reflects poorly on what is actually chosen to be reported. Face it, if our team name was the New York Cosmos we'd be heralded instead of lambasted.
"What has been difficult with NYCFC is so much of the news has been bad" exudes a bias. Some bumps in the road, yes, some expected and unexpected inaugurual blips, yes, but there has been substantially more positive than negative, much of it game-changing for NY soccer and MLS as a whole. Therefore, that statement, which I suspect in your mind wasn't meant as an exaggeration, implies something, even if simply a shred of slant.
You left out my qualifier -- "particularly in the lead up" -- but I'll tackle your statement all the same.
From Lampard's year long inability to actually see the playing field for NYCFC, to the Yankee Stadium issues, to the 11 game winless streak which ate one third of the season, to the supporters insurrections, sprinkled in with those "missteps" makes for a lot of negative narrative.
This isn't just my opinion. Several within NYCFC feel the same way -- you had to see the dour faces post jersey reveal! Awesome event, bumbled execution. That is life for expansion clubs, especially in the strange world of MLS.
Now are there positives? Absolutely! STH numbers, Pirlo, Lampard, Mix, and Villa, record attendance numbers, the vibrant support of the fans, more media glare!
All of that is great. But you can't dismiss the negatives as a "blip." While I agree that NYCFC has the potential to be, as you say, "game-changing for NY soccer and MLS as a whole," you have to be honest about their road to that ultimate goal. And remember -- that is a goal I hope they achieve! I didn't dedicate 10 years of my life to this soccer market to watch it flounder!
Hope that explains something. And again, feel free to reach out. I'm readily accessible as some of you may know.
Dave -- I'm a pretty consistent reader of your site and, in general, really value the coverage that you and the site do of the New York soccer scene. You're the best place to go for Cosmos coverage, in my view, which I've always seriously respected - that's likely not a major driver of traffic to the site, but there's still some great coverage there. You've also brought on MC Bousquette, who does absolutely fantastic work.
I'm not usually one to attack media (both traditional and internet based -- you really shouldn't be ashamed of the word "blog", by the way) for providing legitimate critique, even if that rubs tried and true supporters the wrong way. Most fans legitimately believe that all media is out to get their team, and confirmation bias provides all the evidence that they could be looking for.
However... (This is going to get overly philosophical for a discussion about a sports blog, but I think there are some important points to be made here.)
Pretending that there's not existing relationships among "new media" local coverage with NYRB is, at the most innocent, slightly irresponsible, and at worst, a major issue that discredits coverage.
Most new media (and your blog is absolutely new media) arises due to a local need. NYCFC-specific blogs have been started up by our club's supporters and are just now doing the leg work that may have them taken seriously in four or five years by more than just this fanbase. Maybe at that point, they de-brand and try to expand their coverage. At that point, they cover more than just NYCFC, but you can't shed that history -- it still influences coverage in some major ways.
That's the environment that a lot of new media has arisen from. Pretending those connections don't exist does a disservice to both readers and the medium, and is honestly a bit dangerous when it comes to being taken seriously. I'm not pretending that completely objective coverage is possible - it's not. We all have history. We just have to acknowledge it.
The inherent bias to new media is due to the removal of traditional barriers to old media. With the staff writer in Bloomington, Indiana assigned to the Indiana football beat, you've got a guy from Atlanta, Georgia who didn't go to the school. That guy's able to report and critique more objectively than a girl or guy who grew up going to Indiana football games. It doesn't invalidate the local's coverage, but there's history there that you have to take into account.
We both know that the new media establishment in New York grew to what it is today in a Metro/Red Bull dominant culture. Dan from the Gothamist is widely known (and pretty open) as a Red Bull guy. Biggest podcast related to New York soccer is Seeing Red, which, at one point, you hosted on EoS and contributed to. The current host Mark Fishkin is a staff writer for EoS, and he's a highly visible NYCFC... let's be polite and say "critic". There's a lot of Red Bull history among much of the new media surrounding the sport in the City. Let's not pretend like that doesn't exist.
As a result of that history, consciously or not, there's become a "shoot the messenger" culture surrounding the negative narrative for NYCFC. Few on this forums have been as vocal about their distaste for the Manchester wing of NYCFC's front office as I have been here, so I'm not saying there hasn't been negative content to report.
But the amount of piling on seriously grows tiring. The narrative if Pirlo had signed for NYRB would have been reported entirely differently than it was when he signed for the club across town. Blaming that on a "kill the messenger" deal is really, really weak. It's about history that is honestly more complicated than that.
Did I miss an insurrection? I loves me a good insurrection. And in fact, it's plural. So it seems I've missed *two* insurrections! At least!
Crap, man. This really sucks. Multiple insurrections and I somehow seem to have missed them all.
But yeah, hope I'll be OK and not get too dour-faced on Sunday when I put on my jersey and head out to the match.
Sorry. Maybe I'm just too grumpy from having to still be at work on a Friday afternoon.
So much to tackle here too!
Here goes:
1) Of course there are existing relationships! Of course I have a base audience!
2) HOWEVER, I do not let that cloud either my news coverage or editorials. What makes EoS unique is that I am a fan of NEW YORK SOCCER. MY bias is New York based -- I write news from a local perspective. I issue editorials from the point of view of my region (when I am not talking about national news). That puts blue, red and green under my bias umbrella. I want NY to be the PNW.
3) My connections are well known ... Seeing Red! ... my relationship with Mark ... however, none of that goes to taint my reporting of any team in the area. We will put all teams on blast when we need to, and will always cover each with the same dignity and respect as it should be.
4) Not sure how Pirlo was not reported with the same clout as other DPs. For me, he was everywhere -- including my site. (Don't sack me in with the TOO OLD TO PLAY HERE crowd. That's not me. You can hear me say that everytime I have been on Soccer Morning.)
I can't talk for others. I can't speak for "new media." And I also take absolutely no offense to the tag of "blogger ... even if others may use the word it to discredit our work. I embrace it all.
I can only speak on EoS -- the largest NYC pro soccer specific media destination in the market. As you said, relationships exist. Of course they do. And numbers matter. It's like any other media outlet -- if there is a desire for news in a segment, you feed the beast in that segment. So far, RB, NYC and Cosmos fans have come to the site in equal droves, which helps me give an even-handed coverage of each (shocking huh?).
Are some clubs more accessible than others? Absolutely. Does that mean there may be more news than others in a given week? Yes! But relationships grow all the time. Many relationships with many NYCFC fans/insiders/staffers/players are developing with us just as they did for the Cosmos and RBNY. You would be surprised the people I meet in a week.
I WELCOME that. I LOVE that. And all these independent sites that are popping up? I hope they kill! Hell, I am meeting NYCFCWatch soon for a beer! I speak to the guys at HRB regularly!
In total, I want NY to be the beacon of soccer. I want all three teams to succeed. I want these new bloggers to build empires (no pun intended). Hell, I've spoken to several to join me!
Whatever the case, I appreciate your take, but I can honestly tell you that this media market isn't like other sports. This is a small community where everyone is lifting more than they can carry to bring you, the fans, the latest news, with the evangelical goal of bringing soccer to the masses.
I am not trying to "shed" history. I am trying to add more. That is why I embrace NYCFC in the market.
I've done more writing here than I have my own site today lol.
I appreciate and respect the response, and am totally certain that you and your writers make a conscious decision wherever possible to attempt to cover from an objective perspective. Just to be clear, I try wherever possible to not use "bias" as a dirty term - totally objective reporting is only theoretical.
My point, though, is that due to that history (which we all have, and local soccer fans have more of when it comes to this topic), writing from a totally objective perspective simply isn't possible. A person's take is, like it or not, always colored in one way or another by their history. Seeking "objective reporting" is commendable, but it's just not possible, particularly when we're asking NYCFC supporters (or supporters of another club) to cover their own team or another across town.
I don't mean any of this as a diss. Like I said, I really appreciate your reporting and the work you and your team have done with what is a really good site.
I just totally disagree with the "kill the messenger" angle, and find it patently ridiculous on both a real and theoretical basis. It's at least partially a result of soccer's new media landscape in NYC, and being dismissive of that brings us further away from the truth.
Thanks a ton for stopping by and for your coverage of the club. All the best.
Just wanted to point out that Pirlo did not sign for the "club across town"
I see. You meant your earlier statement as "He wasn't annoyed at something related to Lampard. He was annoyed at an off-topic question." I read it as ""He wasn't annoyed at something related to Lampard. He was annoyed at a question about Lampard." Fair distinction and I could have been more generous with my reading. I also think that if someone asked him about the progress of Iraola and Angelino he would not have been so annoyed even though it was similarly off topic.
ETA: Like others who posted here I'm generally a fan of and appreciative of your work.
"The only way my Mix evolves is if I trade him. You'll trade him right back to me Man City… right?"
You asked a shit question during a major press conference for our club and for this league. You embarrassed yourself.
