By Chris Nee, PN digital planner and football blogger

Journalism is an industry facing many threats. Print circulations are falling, taking with advertising money with them. Online news is still finding its feet, with major outlets feeling their way around various business models and monetisation methods with varying levels of success. The evolution of the web has blown access to this development wide open, hence the inclusion of blogging and forms of citizen journalism in assessments of the news mix in 2010.

The positive outlook here is that news is being democratised. You or I can take part in the reporting of news, in the practice of “journalism”. I do it every day. I’m doing it now, or something approximating to it.

But not everyone sees the removal of barriers as a positive. The National Union of Journalists is, depending on your stance, either remarkably concerned about the standard of journalism being dragged down by hordes of scribbling amateurs, or worried about its members and their jobs. Either would be understandable, but I was still a little surprised to read about an extraordinary broadside from NUJ members in Scotland aimed at newspaper editors employing amateur football writers to cover matches in Scotland.

Freelance journalist Patrick Smith’s blog first drew my attention to the NUJ’s letter to editors, entitled “Kick the Amateurs into Touch”, and quotes one of its most telling paragraphs:

“The union recognises the pressures every desk and editor is under to cut costs but where an event is being covered anyway, we just ask you to consider using a professional journalist. The regular professionals who are still asked to cover games are sick of working next to the growing army of amateurs. They are worried about falling editorial standards and their livelihood driven down by cheap labour or people with second jobs.”

It is, of course, the NUJ’s job to take a protectionist approach to journalism, but the language used betrays its sensitivity when it comes to new media. It also shows a lack of understanding of the situation, or at least a desire to exaggerate exactly how amateurish these amateurs may be. As a football blogger myself, I can tell you it’s not particularly common for me to do any work which would otherwise be classed as the domain of a staffer or even a freelancer.

As Patrick discusses in his post, the letter to editors also ignores the often excellent quality work offered for free by dedicated bloggers and amateur journalists covering not only football but almost every other industry about which one could hope to read. It also fails to address one or two lesser discussed shortcomings of the traditional journalism industry, particularly when it comes to football.

First, it’s actually beneficial to have fresh, bias-free eyes cast over the game every now and again. Football journalism is arguably tainted by the relationships established journalists have with people in the game – proximity to the stars, as it were. Second, and not entirely unrelated, is that a good, enthusiastic blogger is better than a complacent, arrogant journalist in some cases. This was noted by former Scottish newspaper editor Jack Irvine, a response flagged up to me by the author of Scottish Football Blog:

“Here’s an idea. Why don’t we kick all the tossers out of the press box who:- a) invent spurious transfer stories b) invent takeover bids for clubs that never happen c) refuse to share contact details and information with their news desks colleagues when a major sports story breaks d) cover up the appalling behaviour of their sporting buddies (golfing press take a bow!) What have these morons done to earn press cards? No wonder bloggers are putting print media out [of] business. I would suggest that the essential qualification for a good sportswriter is not a press card but a sizeable pair of balls.”

For me, the long and short of it is that both journalists and “amateurs” have much to bring to news and debate. Most of what they offer is different, give or take a few blogger-journalists skirting the borderline. And who knows, if the NUJ’s general outlook on bloggers had been more welcoming from the beginning we might all be a little better at news today.

Chris’s blog can be found at Twofootedtackle.com.

Originally posted at PNIQ.

Journalism is an industry facing many threats. Print circulations are falling, taking with them advertising money. Online news is still finding its feet, with major outlets feeling their way around various business models and monetisation methods with varying levels of success. The evolution of the web has blown access to this development wide open, hence the inevitable inclusion of blogging and forms of citizen journalism in any assessment of the news mix in 2010.

The positive outlook here is that news is being democratised. You or I can take part in the reporting of news, in the practice of “journalism”. I do it every day. I’m doing it now, or something approximating to it.

But not everyone sees the removal of barriers as a positive. The National Union of Journalists is, depending on your stance, either remarkably concerned about the standard of journalism being dragged down by hordes of scribbling amateurs, or worried about its members and their jobs. Either would be understandable, but I was still a little surprised to read about an extraordinary broadside from NUJ members in Scotland aimed at newspaper editors employing amateur football writers to cover matches in Scotland.

Freelance journalist Patrick Smith’s blog first drew my attention to the NUJ’s letter to editors, entitled “Kick the Amateurs into Touch”, and quotes one of its most telling paragraphs:

“The union recognises the pressures every desk and editor is under to cut costs but where an event is being covered anyway, we just ask you to consider using a professional journalist. The regular professionals who are still asked to cover games are sick of working next to the growing army of amateurs. They are worried about falling editorial standards and their livelihood driven down by cheap labour or people with second jobs.”

It is, of course, the NUJ’s job to take a protectionist approach to journalism, but the language used betrays its sensitivity when it comes to new media. It also shows a lack of understanding of the situation, or at least a desire to exaggerate exactly how amateurish these amateurs may be. As a football blogger myself, I can tell you it’s not particularly common for me to do any work which would otherwise be classed as the domain of a staffer or even a freelancer.

As Patrick discusses in his post, the letter to editors also ignores the often excellent quality work offered for free by dedicated bloggers and amateur journalists covering not only football but almost every other industry about which one could hope to read. It also fails to address one or two lesser discussed shortcomings of the traditional journalism industry, particularly when it comes to football.

First, it’s actually beneficial to have fresh, bias-free eyes cast over the game every now and again. Football journalism is arguably tainted by the relationships established journalists have with people in the game – proximity to the stars, as it were. Second, and not entirely unrelated, is that a good, enthusiastic blogger is better than a complacent, arrogant journalist in some cases. This was noted by former Scottish newspaper editor Jack Irvine, a response flagged up to me by the author of Scottish Football Blog:

“Here’s an idea. Why don’t we kick all the tossers out of the press box who:- a) invent spurious transfer stories b) invent takeover bids for clubs that never happen c) refuse to share contact details and information with their news desks colleagues when a major sports story breaks d) cover up the appalling behaviour of their sporting buddies (golfing press take a bow!) What have these morons done to earn press cards? No wonder bloggers are putting print media out [of] business. I would suggest that the essential qualification for a good sportswriter is not a press card but a sizeable pair of balls.”

For me, the long and short of it is that both journalists and “amateurs” have much to bring to news and debate. Most of what they offer is different, give or take a few blogger-journalists skirting the borderline. And who knows, if the NUJ’s general outlook on bloggers had been more welcoming from the beginning we might all be a little better at news today.

When football and social media butt horns, I’m duty bound to chuck in my 2p. Football clubs often struggle to get to grips with the rights and wrongs of social media use and many tend to be slightly over-the-top in their approach.

There are genuine concerns, of course, but generally clubs are over-protective and miss out on opportunities for good public relations and search engine optimisation in their paranoid desperation to avoid a cock-up. For example, rather than addressing Darren Bent’s infamous inappropriate outburst by treating it as they would a comment made to a journalist, Tottenham Hotspur imposed a draconian social media policy – the equivalent of punishing one player’s indiscretion by banning the staff from talking to journalists.

In theory, it abandons more opportunities for good PR than is proportionate.

So I noted with interest that Manchester United, one of the world’s best supported clubs (recent calculations put the number at mind-boggling levels), has announced that none of its players have social media profiles and all official player news is communicated directly by the club’s official website.

Already it seems a little (a) unlikely and (b) short-sighted to think that no players at the club use Facebook or Twitter. And that’s without taking into account that it’s almost certain that a few of United’s players do have such profiles, and they were well-followed.

The twist comes from a friend of mine, EPL Talk editor “The Gaffer” (he does have a real name, but if I told you what it is I’d have to kill you), who has overseen some further research into the matter and confirmed that Manchester United has in fact actively shut down profiles belonging to Ryan Giggs, Wes Brown, Wayne Rooney, Darren Fletcher and Rio Ferdinand. Merked.

It’s a move which epitomises the fear in which football clubs hold social media, and The Gaffer discusses possible motivations. Control is the main motivator, of course. But he also argues that United want to avoid PR disaster by maintaining an approval process for all messaging which leaves the club, and that the existence of active profiles encourages supporters to look to sites other than the corporate homepage to find out about these players, having a knock-on effect on the site’s traffic and the resulting sales conversions.

If the club wants to have total control, that’s its own look-out and more power to its elbow. But if the other two factors are United’s motivators, they’re very much mistaken.

There is a sound argument for allowing multiple digital outposts in order to improve traffic and other stats for one’s main website. It’s all linkbuilding, for a start. And if embraced, players’ profiles could become a worthwhile source of traffic. I’m not sure I agree with The Gaffer’s view that additional social media profiles detract from traffic to the corporate hub in the first place. In my opinion, most football supporters use their club’s official site routinely anyway, and if that is under threat from anywhere, it’s comprehensive and professional-quality supporter websites which operate almost as full news outlets which are as on the ball as the main site without taking away the negatives.

The added complication – and this is one with which I sympathise – is the proliferation of fake accounts which inevitably do the rounds in this situation. But instead of taking steps to make sure everyone knows all player accounts are fake, why not use them properly and make sure it’s clear which ones are the genuine article?

From an employment and business point of view, I tend to think it’s risky to be quite so over the top in one’s dealing with employees. However, we’re talking about highly paid footballers here so frankly United can do as they wish. From my perspective, Sunderland’s “let him at it” approach to Bent, the aforementioned Twitter fanatic, is much more sensible and could turn out to be more fruitful. How about some creative merchandise, or a Q&A to fire up some good coverage?

It’s all very symptomatic of Premier League football clubs’ rather slow movement when it comes to adopting anything which doesn’t show an immediate return on investment. My club, Aston Villa, appeared to have been doing the right thing. Following a takeover by Randy Lerner in 2006, board member General Charles Krulak was deployed to engage with various message boards, and has been answering stupid questions from stupid people ever since.

But it appears Villa may not be as enlightened as we’re led to believe. A well-known and well-liked employee of the club revealed recently that he had been dismissed from his role because he posted on a Villa message board during the festive break. It appears said employee had been asked not to post on forums, a strange revelation given the well-known Twitterings of Villa players James Collins and Brad Guzan.

He shouldn’t have gone back on a sealed agreement, of course, but it’s an insight into the social media approach of a club many of us thought were willing to be pioneers in this area.

What do you think about Manchester United’s approach? Should football clubs enforce different social media policies to standard businesses, or are they missing opportunities by being too restrictive?