IDK, but seems you might be over exaggerating some perceived negative treatment of the press by the team. Is there any evidence of this?
Nothing that can be shared publicly, but I'm a journalist myself. This information comes from a few different folks who have covered the team. For whatever it's worth, the Coyotes PR department has a reputation in the media for being the most difficult to work with in the league.
As for on the record, off the record - I stand corrected, but if it's reported and there is no source it's basically not worth the bandwidth it's printed within.
I don't agree with that at all. The most interesting information tends to be stuff people don't want their names associated with. It requires a bit of media literacy to separate idle speculation, gamesmanship and real substance, but anonymously sourced material is often quite valuable. That's why the reputation of a journalist or an outlet matters.
Take Elliotte Friedman, for example. No one in the hockey media publishes more substantive information than he does. His 30 Thoughts column is usually my only must-read piece in a given week, filled with trade rumors, tactical decisions and other insider information. Much or most of it is usually unsourced. Friedman has a lot of strong relationships around the league, though, and I imagine this information comes largely from regular conversations with folks in this or that front office. Given his reputation, if he shares an unsourced rumor about a player being on the block, you can bet that player will be moved.
In NHL coverage and the media more generally, anonymous sources are vastly overused, but when deployed responsibly, they are an endlessly important tool for a journalist. Part of the problem, though, is that the atomization of our media landscape and the diminished role of previously revered institutions has made it far more difficult for the average news consumer to be able to keep track of who is legitimate and who is not.
The complicating factor, of course, is that there is a growing trend of treating the press as a de facto publicity mechanism rather than a source of objective reportage. You see it a lot in politics these days, but the problem is particularly evident in sports reporting, and part of the problem is because too many media outlets sup at the media buffets, and too many "independent journalists" (read: bloggers, writers for exposure, etc.) are willing to feast on helpfully-supplied spin doctoring and content rather than employ actual journalistic principles and procedures.
That has allowed these entities to be more brazen about their access granting and more demanding of reporters, because they know that market share is rapidly supplanting accuracy as motivators for many outlets. Those outlets know that someone else with lower standards and overhead are more willing to bend for these entities and, consequently, they receive more perqs.
Yup. In 2004, publicists outnumbered journalists 3:1. In 2014, it was 5:1, and I suspect the ratio has gotten worse since. As legitimate press outlets contract and shutter entirely, it becomes easier for institutions to exploit the diminished capabilities of the media for their own messaging. Social media and other modes of communication also increasingly allow institutions to bypass traditional media entirely. It's no coincidence that many companies have merged their public relations and marketing operations into one department.
That said, publicists still need journalists far more than journalists need publicists.
And how is Mr Shoalts' comedic career going?
