Chances are, a lot of compelling video will be shot on mobile phones and uploaded on sharing sites on the internet within minutes.
Chances are, the first report of a result out of a stadium won’t be Reuters, AP, or Afp. Chances are the first report of a result will be one of 1,572 (to pick a number at random) Twitterers sitting in the stadium banging the result out in a Tweet from their mobile phone.
And since tweets can aggregated and can be searched by keyword – who is the journalist? What is the media organisation? Who has control?
I’m willing to bet that 90% of the athletes participating all have Facebook pages and blogs and Twitter accounts and video-enabled mobiles themselves.
While I know you’ve tried to put some rules and structure around what athletes can and can’t do, frankly I think you’re whistling in the wind.
To say they can blog as long as it isn’t journalistic, misses the point.
You’d think they had no idea, from reading the financial press. For instance, the WSJ’s Pui-Wing Tam started an article today by talking about “little-known social coding start-up GitHub”. Or consider this, from the FT’s Barney Jopson:
Most consumers still view Amazon as an online book retailer. Some are surprised to find it sells much more than the single product with which Jeff Bezos, its founder and chief executive, started in 1994.
I’m unclear on the purpose this kind of thing serves. For tech-savvy readers, it certainly makes these papers seem incredibly out-of-touch and irrelevant. Is it a way of reassuring the Old People that they’re not completely out of the loop? If so, it’s a pretty ham-fisted way of doing it. My guess is that it’s ultimately coming from crusty old editors who still view smartphones with suspicion. And that it’s going to be a serious impediment to these titles going effectively digital.