If you look at the comments received from my previous post, about the L.A. Kings hiring their own beat reporter … I am informed that this goes on practically everywhere (!) in these United States. Happens all the time.
However, I would suggest that most of the examples cited fall far short in scope and sheer bravura to what the Kings and Rich Hammond are embarking on.
As poster “Gideon” writes (in a lonely defense, among the “hear about the Lindbergh Baby?” snipers) … “Paying for objective coverage and giving the writer complete editorial independence isn’t the same thing as the flack-driven hires several posters are citing here, and is unprecedented at least in its intent.”
This is what is new and different. Bold. Outwardly attractive to journalists who fear censorship. And maybe impossible.
The blog item below was linked by Jim Romenesko’s site, which drove up traffic significantly.
I am waiting for someone to give me an apples-to-apples comparison of the Kings/Hammond situation. Someone doing radio work, or being subsumed into the PR department … that most certainly is not what this Kings deal allegedly is about.
The Kings and Hammond say he will work directly for them … yet have complete editorial freedom. That he will not have to clear a post or a blog item with anyone. Has that actually happened anywhere?
I readily concede, again, that it will be telling to see if this experiment succeeds from the perspective of “historical newspaper coverage” standards. Whether the Kings can keep their hands of Hammond’s stuff and whether Rich can keep himself from being co-opted by the franchise, eventually.
As Gideon put it, “Whether this starts a trend is questionable though. Everyone wants the publicity, and will pay for it if that’s what it takes. That’s the easy part. But I doubt there many teams are really willing to pay for their own watchdog.”
6 responses so far ↓
1 Chuck Hickey // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM
B.G. Brooks has the same editorial freedom with the University of Colorado, and he’s on the college’s payroll.
Aaron Lopez soon will be in the same position (if he hasn’t already started) with the Nuggets, getting paid by Kroenke Enterprises.
Jeff White of the Richmond Times-Dispatch was hired by the University of Virginia to be the staff writer for the school’s Web site.
As you said, this particular trend is growing — and will continue to grow, I believe.
2 Ryan // Sep 24, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Vic Ketchman has the same editorial freedom with Jaguars.com. The only exception is that he cannot report numbers on contracts until another source does.
3 Bill N. // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I think there are two questions in this case that make it more intriguing:
1) What are the odds LANG actually replaces Hammond on the Kings? It’s not a high profile beat, by any means, and as the Deputy Sports Editor, you know he was working some sort of desk shift along with making calls to cover the team (a lot of times, probably on his “own” time).
And 2) How, other than driving people to their own site for news, does this help the Kings with their stated problem of falling off the LA radar when they’re on the road. Without Hammond pushing stories and copies, how much less space will the papers dedicate to coverage to hockey? It’s great for Kings fans, who already follow all the news and blogs (and there’s a lot of them), but how does it get the person on the fence?
4 Chuck Hickey // Sep 24, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I think that’s the point that was being made. Rich is an established name. He pushed, he drew lots of traffic. Now that traffic will go to the Kings site. Why? Rich’s name recognition and what he has established. They certainly won’t be going to the LADN site. It will be up to Rich — and the Kings — to maintain the continuity and, most importantly, OBJECTIVITY.
5 Joseph D'Hippolito // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM
We’ll see how much leeway Hammond gets. I say that because the Kings are owned by AEG — and, as somebody who covers the Galaxy (another AEG-owned team) for AP, AEG is anal about media control. Galaxy media relations is about as bad as they come in my experience. I had one of the Galaxy’s minions call my home at midnight (I hadn’t gotten home from the Galaxy game I was covering) to register a complaint about my story that was already up on the Web.
Two years ago, this same fellow tried to dissuade me from reporting on David Beckham aggravating an ankle injury in training (the Times’ Grahame Jones had the same story), then trashed my professional credibility publicly in the press box.
Leiweke, Anschutz and the Prussians at AEG are control freaks. They’re also liars (as testified by the nickname, “Lie-weakly” or “Lie-weekly”). If they tell you that 2+2=4, check it out.
6 Jeff Fletcher // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I don’t think the Kings are going to have to do anything to have effective censorship over Hammond’s work. His paycheck is going to have “LA Kings” on it. Any reasonable person is not going to publicly bite the hand that is feeding him.
Would someone working at a newspaper need to be “censored” to avoid writing in his column “My newspaper stinks”?
We’ll see.
All that said, there is plenty of room for insightful analysis and informative coverage, even if you avoid the harshest of criticism. I’m sure Kings fans will still get something out of it, and so will Hammond (namely, a job).
Leave a Comment