Over at Canucks Corner, Tom Benjamin is expressing some doubts over the possibility that the NHL may start to grant media credentials to bloggers. In the comments thread, you'll find the crux of Tom's argument:
I can see a cost, however small. When Brian asked me whether I wanted him to try to get accreditation for Canuckscorner, I passed. For me it was mostly a time issue but the bottom line was that I could not see how me going to the games would make this blog any better or my pieces any more interesting. I could see how a more personal relationship with the team, the players, or other reporters could make it less interesting.In my opinion it is our outsider status that makes us unique. Eliminate that and what are we?
Instead of dealing with Tom's question directly, something that I think James Mirtle does rather effectively himself in the comments string, I'd like to ask everyone to remember how and why this conversation all started, and what I think it means in a larger context.
I may have created -- with considerable input from my readers -- a set of guidelines to allow bloggers to get media credentials. But this didn't begin with me asking for credentials, this started with an owner sending me an email and asking me to go to a game.
In other words, instead of hockey bloggers just shouting into the void and at each other, the folks who are involved in the day-to-day operation of the league have started to listen. And now there are plenty of indications that they're ready to talk back to us.
In one of Tom's comments, he writes that it's a lot easier for us to analyze the hockey media than it is to replicate what they do. That's the absolute truth. But we need to take that one step further.
Because it's one thing for bloggers to have a conversation among ourselves and with our readers. But it's another thing entirely to be engaged by the folks we're talking about, and in some sense, be held accountable for what we write. I can see why some folks might not like that idea. I prefer to see it as an opportunity.
Tom has also expressed the concern that if a blogger attains insider status, the blogger's position as an independent critic of the league might be compromised, and I don't disagree. In fact, it's a concern I've shared privately with Tom from time to time over the last few months. But that already happens in the MSM. As one reader wrote to me, if only purely objective people covered professional sports, there'd be a lot of empty press boxes in American college football.
In the end, I can't help but tie all this to what I've written and experienced myself. So to wrap things up, I'll throw a couple of other questions out there:
Did I compromise my objecivity when I accepted an invitation from Ted Leonsis to watch a game with him?
Was it an interesting experience to blog about?
Did my readers gain some insight into the game and how it's run?
My answers are no, yes and yes. Others might disagree. But our hobby is changing. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about politics, entertainment or professional hockey. The conversation we're having is about to get bigger. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter who wants in, be it Leonsis, Ted Saskin, Ken Hitchcock, Trevor Linden or even Don Cherry.
If any of those folks want to send me an email, I'll be happy to answer it. If others would choose not to answer, I can understand. But don't expect me to do the same.
