Another tidbit that bothers me about the media.

[Will]

This isn't reflective of all media members because Matt Scianitti was at camp for the entire time on Sunday and Mike Hogan was there for most of it, but a lot of the media just shows up halfway through the practice to get their interviews done. Wouldn't their analysis benefit from actual observation?

[gilthethrill]

Driving home from work the other day listening to the radio (I don't get much of a selection east of London), so I had PTS with Jeff Blair & his flunkies on for a few minutes. Discussion was about Championships in the city of Toronto...I was infuriated but not surprised that the Argos were not even a part of the discussion. Honestly I don't understand.

[paulwoods13]

There is usually little worth reporting from camp workouts, IMO. All of us love the observations we get from attendees on this forum, but I don't see much news value in the MSM reporting that so-and-so made a nice catch, or whatever. Coaches base their evaluations on all kinds of stuff we (and reporters) aren't watching. If a guy makes spectacular catches day after day, or consistently overpowers blockers during pads-on drills, a note or two would be worth putting in the paper. But otherwise the stuff untrained observers see is not terribly newsworthy, IMO.

[D-Gap-Willie]

Driving home from work the other day listening to the radio (I don't get much of a selection east of London), so I had PTS with Jeff Blair & his flunkies on for a few minutes. Discussion was about Championships in the city of Toronto...I was infuriated but not surprised that the Argos were not even a part of the discussion. Honestly I don't understand.

It must have been a very short discussion, about a few now rather vague old memories.

There is usually little worth reporting from camp workouts, IMO. All of us love the observations we get from attendees on this forum, but I don't see much news value in the MSM reporting that so-and-so made a nice catch, or whatever. Coaches base their evaluations on all kinds of stuff we (and reporters) aren't watching. If a guy makes spectacular catches day after day, or consistently overpowers blockers during pads-on drills, a note or two would be worth putting in the paper. But otherwise the stuff untrained observers see is not terribly newsworthy, IMO.

It is very much worth reporting, since it builds fan interest and some hype. Get over it - the Argos are "newsworthy" in all aspects, if we hope to grow the fan base.

[paulwoods13]

It is very much worth reporting, since it builds fan interest and some hype. Get over it - the Argos are "newsworthy" in all aspects, if we hope to grow the fan base.

Thanks for the instruction, which I won't follow. Journalism is about reporting information that matters. Who catches a few passes on the second day of training camp is generally not in that category. It's nice to know but is not in the need-to-know category under any reasonable definition of news.

[Will]

Would it be common practice for journalists to show up half-way through a Leafs, Raptors or Blue Jays practice?

[1argoholic]

Sorry Paul but you'd be in the minority on here. We fans who LOVE the Double Blue and CFL will take any news.

Although I do watch the NHL I'm very sick of the coverage of every little detail. We may live in Canada but there's more to this country than hockey and crappy Tim's. Most would like you to believe that you're not Canadian if the hockey isn't your number one sport enjoyed while have a swill coffee.

Someone on CFTO last week mentioned how starved TO was for a champion. Pissed me off. Wasn't anyone on sports.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Thanks for the instruction, which I won't follow. Journalism is about reporting information that matters. Who catches a few passes on the second day of training camp is generally not in that category. It's nice to know but is not in the need-to-know category under any reasonable definition of news.

Maybe you should tell that to your collegues on the 24hr news channel. Very little of what they report is actual news.

[ArgoRavi]

I am going to have to disagree with you, Paul. Reporters should be knowledgeable about what they are covering. They don't have to report whether someone caught a pass or two during practice but they should watch the entire practice to provide context for what they are reporting. Showing up halfway through a practice just seems like lazy journalism to me. I doubt that reporters do the same for the Leafs or Raptors.

[gilthethrill]

Reminds me of ArgoGabe22's story about Damian Cox preparing to interview former Argo All-Star Lineman Rob Murphy a few seasons ago.....

[ArgoGabe22]

Hockey reporters usually cover all injuries and any line changes seen at practice. Has anyone who reported the Argos recently ever done so to the same extent as hockey?

I agree that we don't need a play by play but I think if the media were more fond of what they were covering, they could easily say who's looking good out there and where are they lining up. The Argos, I believe have 19 receivers in camp. Some have to be doing better than others.

Most media never actually watch the Argo practices IMO. Either talking to one another or to PR staff, walking around or on their phones. Some just go to the coaching scrum and leave after that without interviewing anyone else.

Someone must have told Cox to do a story on Murphy so he just went at the last minute before practice ended. The usual guys at last year's practices were Matt Scianetti, Frank Zicarelli, and Bob Mitchell from the Star.

[paulwoods13]

There is another, more prosaic reason for the lack of full-time coverage. Reporters for three of the four dailies are governed by collective agreements that stipulate a work day of 7.5 or 8 hours. Overtime is paid after that. Standing around a field for 4.5 hours, then interviewing coaches, then writing the story and in some cases filing video would very easily get one to the workday limit. There is no chance any sports editor would authorize OT for coverage of a routine day in training camp. And with all the cuts in newsrooms in recent years, the Argo reporters often have more than one assignment in a day.

But back to the main point -- we should all expect journalists to give us the information we need to decide how we want to be governed, and to govern ourselves. That is the primary purpose of journalism in a democracy. In a broad sense that can include information on such "frills" as whether or not I should buy tickets to a particular event, support a particular team, etc. But journalism has no obligation to promote a particular endeavour, help build its fan base, etc., and in fact doing so would be counter to the principles of good journalism.

As to vanriderfan's complaint about the "24-hour news channel," I don't know to which one you are referring (there are at least four that I know of in this market) but I will say that relying on TV as the sole or primary source of news coverage is generally not advisable. Coverage doled out in 90-second sound bites is bound to be superficial.

[Double Dare]

I don't care to know who uses Goldbond.

[Rich]

I've noticed more microphones in front of Argo subjects at training camp than there used to be. There used to be 2 or 3, and now i'm seeing 5 or 6 mics in front of Milanovich or whoever.

This is good. Even if reporters are not covering the whole practice, it seems like there are more reporters there.

It's not really about newsworthiness. The sports outlets have so much time to fill, and so little of importance to deliver. Phil Kessel getting a hangnail is not newsworthy in any sense of the word, yet the local sports outlets will be all over the story.

Up against the glut of Leaf coverage, any Argo coverage is good coverage. I even think the labour dispute has been good for the CFL profile in Toronto, there's been much more coverage of the CFL than usual, and i think it helps legitimize the league in the eyes of some casual observers.

[Argonut]

There is another, more prosaic reason for the lack of full-time coverage. Reporters for three of the four dailies are governed by collective agreements that stipulate a work day of 7.5 or 8 hours. Overtime is paid after that. Standing around a field for 4.5 hours, then interviewing coaches, then writing the story and in some cases filing video would very easily get one to the workday limit. There is no chance any sports editor would authorize OT for coverage of a routine day in training camp. And with all the cuts in newsrooms in recent years, the Argo reporters often have more than one assignment in a day.

But back to the main point -- we should all expect journalists to give us the information we need to decide how we want to be governed, and to govern ourselves. That is the primary purpose of journalism in a democracy. In a broad sense that can include information on such "frills" as whether or not I should buy tickets to a particular event, support a particular team, etc. But journalism has no obligation to promote a particular endeavour, help build its fan base, etc., and in fact doing so would be counter to the principles of good journalism.

As to vanriderfan's complaint about the "24-hour news channel," I don't know to which one you are referring (there are at least four that I know of in this market) but I will say that relying on TV as the sole or primary source of news coverage is generally not advisable. Coverage doled out in 90-second sound bites is bound to be superficial.

I'm going to support Paul on this. Paul, you don't happen to work in media do you? You are bang on.
Social Media has become a real challenge for conventional media. More and more people are getting the News and Sports info faster than many television, radio or print media can deliver. Conventinal media takes a hit financially (lack of advertisers) so they cut back. There is less time for what reporters remain to cover and all within their regularly scheduled day.

If a reporter and camera operator were to remain at the training camp for 3-4 hours and another one hour of travel each way to downtown/scarborough or whereever, that's six hours of resources. Add in a meal break - that makes it 7. That only leaves 2 more hours for an assignment editor to schedule. If it's a big story (Argonauts Sing NFL Star) - then they will dedicate those resources to that story but for a general daily update... probably not.

Reporters will come in and get out as fast as possible because they are usually assigned multiple stories.

[paulwoods13]

I'm going to support Paul on this. Paul, you don't happen to work in media do you?

I don't work for a news organization any more, but I spent 31 years at The Canadian Press news agency. I now do consulting work for the National Newspaper Awards. Both of those roles kept/keep me in close touch with the news business. I don't think any of that qualifies me as an "expert," but I think it's fair to say it helps me form an "informed opinion."

[gilthethrill]

I don't work for a news organization any more, but I spent 31 years at The Canadian Press news agency. I now do consulting work for the National Newspaper Awards. Both of those roles kept/keep me in close touch with the news business. I don't think any of that qualifies me as an "expert," but I think it's fair to say it helps me form an "informed opinion."

Well Paul if you are not an expert on this subject, then you are as close as it gets.

[argotom]

Driving home from work the other day listening to the radio (I don't get much of a selection east of London), so I had PTS with Jeff Blair & his flunkies on for a few minutes. Discussion was about Championships in the city of Toronto...I was infuriated but not surprised that the Argos were not even a part of the discussion. Honestly I don't understand.

And this "infuriates" you from Fan 590?
In fact, Team 1050 is not much better as I would describe them as wannabe Fan 590 Lite.
You would think they would not be as bad since owned by TSN and the obvious connection to the league?
Like me, don't listen to 590, and only to 1050 during Argo telecasts.

There is another, more prosaic reason for the lack of full-time coverage. Reporters for three of the four dailies are governed by collective agreements that stipulate a work day of 7.5 or 8 hours. Overtime is paid after that. Standing around a field for 4.5 hours, then interviewing coaches, then writing the story and in some cases filing video would very easily get one to the workday limit. There is no chance any sports editor would authorize OT for coverage of a routine day in training camp. And with all the cuts in newsrooms in recent years, the Argo reporters often have more than one assignment in a day.

But back to the main point -- we should all expect journalists to give us the information we need to decide how we want to be governed, and to govern ourselves. That is the primary purpose of journalism in a democracy. In a broad sense that can include information on such "frills" as whether or not I should buy tickets to a particular event, support a particular team, etc. But journalism has no obligation to promote a particular endeavour, help build its fan base, etc., and in fact doing so would be counter to the principles of good journalism.

As to vanriderfan's complaint about the "24-hour news channel," I don't know to which one you are referring (there are at least four that I know of in this market) but I will say that relying on TV as the sole or primary source of news coverage is generally not advisable. Coverage doled out in 90-second sound bites is bound to be superficial.

Not sure I buy your theory.
Reporters and specifically the various News and Sports directors, have an obvious bias and especially when their bread is buttered by the conglomerate owner who dictates who to follow.
Especially since here in the city Rogers has a monopoly with radio, TV and print.
As for sports on the 24 hour stations, look a little closer next time and see how the Crap Jays, TFC, Raptors and the Leafs are covered over the top and especially the main players before and after their respective games.
The cheer-leading is nauseating.

[paulwoods13]

Not sure I buy your theory.
Reporters and specifically the various News and Sports directors, have an obvious bias and especially when their bread is buttered by the conglomerate owner who dictates who to follow.
Especially since here in the city Rogers has a monopoly with radio, TV and print.
As for sports on the 24 hour stations, look a little closer next time and see how the Crap Jays, TFC, Raptors and the Leafs are covered over the top and especially the main players before and after their respective games.
The cheer-leading is nauseating.

With all due respect, Tom, the existence of collective agreements and the chill on non-essential overtime is a fact of life, not a theory. Even the Sun, which has the best and biggest sports section in Canada (by far) does not allow its reporters to work overtime unless it is essential, such as covering a playoff game that goes into overtime. They definitely would not allow their Argo reporter to put in more than the allotted hours on a routine assignment like training camp. And often he will have more than one assignment to complete in a shift. I'd love it if reporters covered every minute of camp and practice but there is virtually no demand from readers or advertisers for that the way there is in, say, Buffalo for wall-to-wall Bills coverage. Wish it were different but realities get in the way of the ideal.

[Wobbler]

I would have assumed that all of Toronto's major papers were unionized. Which is the exception, Paul? The Post?