Warning: this is a post only loosely involving baseball. Actually, a more apt description is that it is definitely about baseball, but really, it is about sports coverage in general.
As the title suggests, this post is about
Bleacher Report. It is a sports website that has grown considerably, and is up to 20 million viewers a month (at least according to its own numbers). Their approach to sports coverage is polarizing.
Directly quoting Bleacher Report's
Company Overview:
Our distinguished editorial team leads more than 700 Featured Columnists, and directs Bleacher Report’s unique data-driven approach to creating and programming content. The result is first-rate sports journalism that gives our audience the stories they want to read in real-time, all the time.
And with more than 500 new articles published daily, no other sports network provides the breadth and depth of Bleacher Report’s highly entertaining coverage. Content created by the Bleacher Report editorial community is regularly syndicated to such leading media outlets as CBS Sports.com, the Los Angeles Times, NHL.com, Hearst Newspapers, USAToday.com, and Telegraph.co.uk.
Continuing down the company overview page, Bleacher Report was founded on the principle that "...everyday sports experts could provide great opinions and analysis, if only they were given the right platform." The self-described Featured Columnists and first-rate sports journalism is largely provided by, as PBS specials might put it, viewers like you and me.
Given Bleacher Report's strong viewership and expanding partnerships with major providers of online sports content, its popularity seems to be growing.
Yet, at the same time, Bleacher Report gets hammered by journalists. For instance, I came across
this strong piece by Dave Kindred today. In his writing, he notes that separate business deals, one involving Bleacher Report, and the other
Fanhouse, indirectly imply that Bleacher Report's content is valued twice as much on the open market. Kindred cannot fathom how this makes any sense at all, given that Fanhouse features well-respected, award-winning journalists, and Bleacher Report features any Jane or Joe Blow that feels moved to type something.
No doubt, Bleacher Report challenges the status quo of sports journalism. Never before has there been a powerful sports media platform accessible to anyone.
Is that good or bad though?
Do journalists hammer Bleacher Report just because they are jealous? Scared? Stubborn?
Is Bleacher Report really just a place where piddle about whatever athlete or game collects, and 20 million people every month drink the Kool-Aid?
Usually, if I write about something, I have a clear stance or opinion. I don't on Bleacher Report though. I don't know what to make of it.