News Routines in the TV Sports Department: Shifting Expectations and Technology in an Increasingly Digital Landscape

Abstract

The sports departments in local television news stations across the United States are transforming with the shifting contemporary trends implemented industry wide. Some departments are contracting, others are moving their content to web-only, while others are simply trying to sustain themselves in modern ways. The purpose of this study was to examine how current local sports television journalists addressed the changing marketplace and what impact the procedural and technological changes had on the stories they delivered. Researchers conducted 30 semistructured interviews with current sports media practitioners who worked in newsrooms throughout the United States. The findings of this study rendered four themes, which cumulatively suggest local sports media practitioners are facing varied engagements with job satisfaction and productivity based on their adaptability with shifting expectations. The themes were underscored by the influence of a move to digital first as an industry standard, while specifically examining how social media influences behavior and engagement. The study concludes that, while there are pervasive traditional constraints on journalists, there are also more recent challenges that created complexities in the exchange of information.

Keywords

sports journalism routines digital first local television

News Routines in the Sports Department: Changes and Impact

An escalating tension between the demands of digital and traditional content is infiltrating newsrooms across the United States (Bender et al., 2019; Moritz, 2015). Journalists who work for these legacy media outlets are almost universally required to add content to their—often professionally associated—social media accounts and station websites (Hutchins & Rowe, 2012; Ketterer et al., 2014). Simultaneously, the multimedia journalist model has become standard in sports departments, as it has in most departments, requiring journalists to shoot, write, edit, research, gather sources, produce shows, and carry a multitude of other responsibilities in order to get a product on television. The push by many local news stations has been to primarily focus on contributing content online, or “digital first,” and then tend to their traditional content (Cohen, 2018). The philosophical debate, on its surface, seems to be which responsibility (digital/social or traditional) is more important with this shifting industry. The real debate, however, may revolve around whether or not these journalists have the capacity to juggle both simultaneously and do their jobs appropriately.

The importance of investigating local sports broadcast media journalists is 2-fold. First, local journalism matters holistically (Ali, 2016; Carey, 2000; Cranney, 2019). National sport media monopolies, like ESPN and Fox Sports, have altered the consumption behavior of sporting news (Turner, 2014). The macroperspective of their content satisfies desires for important international and national news stories, but less hyperlocal stories. The esoteric and sometimes most individually relevant stories, however, rely on local media for attention. In many cases, the local journalism feeds the national mechanisms (Thorson et al., 2020). Second, the local sports television journalist population has largely been understudied in the past and, when practitioners have been sampled, they are usually grouped with their print journalist counterparts (Ketterer et al., 2014).

The purpose of this research is to examine how local television sports journalists in the United States navigate the demands of their jobs and develop tactics that allow for the tenets of journalism to exist in a rapidly changing landscape. Specifically, this study was particularly interested in news gathering routines of current practitioners that are employed in the United States’ 210 designated market areas (DMA) (Nielsen, 2019). Finally, this scholarship intends to add contemporary perspectives on the challenges that exist among legacy news outlets.

Review of Literature

A person’s ability to access information from primary actors, as well as journalism entities, is unique to this era (Serazio, 2019). Journalists are often the front line for those seeking information to digest, comprehend, and convey material for publics to grasp (Bender et al., 2019). The intensity of information flow can be a burden to the layman but also these practitioners. It is essential, therefore, to consider the journalistic processes, as well as the outcomes, in order to ascertain the functionality of news dissemination practices in this media environment (Mellado, 2015; Whiteside et al., 2012), especially the role routines have on the production of news. Reinardy’s (2009, 2010, 2013) work, in particular, was instrumental in capturing the duality of performance and information overload, specifically as it pertained to job satisfaction. The referenced Reinardy scholarship was generally descriptive when it was published but has been foretelling of factors of burnout that are increasingly fundamental to the job nearly a decade later: namely, technological influences on journalistic values (2010), expanded job responsibilities that incorporate digital outcomes (2013), and gender discrepancies among career expectancies (2009).

Journalistic Values

The adage, “good journalists know a little about a great deal” has had somewhat of a renaissance in this conversation. Cole (1998) mentioned the saying in relation to a debate surrounding the training of journalists; whether proper journalism education was a necessity or inconsequential. The author, however, cited advancements in technology as central to his argument in support of proper training (Cole, 1998). That was in 1998, when email and instant messaging were in their infancy. The present-day proliferation of digital and social media has amplified not only a need for preparation in the discipline, but a wider understanding of digital literacy and media competency (Bender et al., 2019). The contemporary journalist is tasked with meeting the same demands as his or her predecessors but has added multimedia responsibilities (Hutchins & Rowe, 2012). This diversification of journalism-related competencies that are necessary in the modern newsroom illuminated opportunities for prospective journalists (Ketterer et al., 2014) and also inherent tensions once in the workplace (Moritz, 2015).

A cornerstone aspect to those responsibilities is delivering social media content. Newsrooms across the country are moving to a model that requires their journalists to produce social media content and quantifies the contributions as part of annual reviews and retention policies (Fischer, 2014). Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the largest broadcast media conglomerates in the United States, noted in the first two lines of its social media policy that social media has become a “prominent fixture in people’s lives” and “social media platforms also continue to emerge as essential news gathering tools” (Social Media Policy & Guidelines, n.d., para. 1). The emphasis of pushing journalists to diversify their production from a platform standpoint is potentially a result of trending data that shows a growing number of Americans receiving their news from online platforms (Henderson, 2019; Pew Research Center, 2018). According to the Pew Research Center (2018), approximately 50% of adults in the 18–29 and 30–49 categories obtain their news from online content producers. Television does, however, account for the largest portion of news dependency holistically, including 46% of adults procuring their information from local TV.

Gans’s (1979) groundbreaking examination of comprehensive news gathering efforts made by journalists highlighted what he called “considerations” rather than rules or techniques in the production of news (p. 73), in that, journalists, specifically in broadcast, navigate internal and external pressures in deriving what they deem newsworthy. Schudson (1989) added to this complex economy of information dissemination by claiming journalists have long been misdiagnosed as gatekeepers, those responsible for what is newsworthy and what is not, but should be viewed more as opportunists that provide information to their publics when it is mostly made available to them. That said, local television news, when produced and reported on well, is argued to have a greater impact on audiences than their sensationalized, cable news counterparts (Belt & Just, 2008; Martin & Mccrain, 2019). The challenge, of course, is how to realize processes that facilitate excellent reporting and producing.

Routines

Media sociology is an expansive topic area under the media studies realm and investigations into news routines fall into this category. Alterations to the digital first media landscape have increased the pertinence of this area of scholarship (Andrews & Caren, 2010). Tuchman (1972) was instrumental as one of the first scholars to highlight the significance of news routines in journalism. She referenced the unique challenge that faced journalists who had repetitive, in many ways programmatic, jobs with diverse day-to-day experiences. A newscast, for instance, happens at the same exact time every night, and a reporter’s deadline is essentially the same time every night as well. What they do during a shift, however, is considerably different each day. Reese (2001) argued that constraints such as technology, time, space, and norms are facets of routines, but an ability to navigate through those limitations can enable a journalist to be highly functional in their job.

Reese’s (2001) qualifiers of technology, time, space, and norms also structurally underscore the definition of news routines. This study will explore the influences each has on producing daily sports content as it pertains to using multiple technologies (technology), meeting deadlines (time), operationalized newsrooms (space), and industry standards (norms). Lee, Lindsey and Kim (2017) added to Reese’s principles of routines by accounting for expectations derived from accessing news via social media. The cumulative effect of both studies was a longitudinal perspective of Reese’s assertion of constants (technology, time, space, norms; Reese, 2001) met with immersive behavioral changes to news consumption (accessing news via social media; Lee et al., 2017), which ultimately impacts news consumption expectations. This information is useful in understanding the methods journalists use to obtain and deliver news content but also to scrutinize the ramifications influencing the pressures on journalists (Kruvand, 2012; Mellado, 2015). For the purposes of this study, news routines were defined as standardized work actions that meet the requirements of a local television sports journalist from both an institutional and industry standpoint.

The Sports Genre

The sports departments in these high-intensity television work environments largely mirror the demands their colleagues face in the news department. One similarity the two share is heightened pressure to remain fiscally viable (Pew Research Center, 2018). Local TV news stations face two important challenges in this plight: companies like Nexstar Media Group and the aforementioned Sinclair Broadcasting Group continue to buy local affiliates due to changing Federal Communication Commission legislation, and technological shifts are driving audiences to digital platforms (Comer & Wikle, 2015). Pew Research Center (2019) measured a 31% (12% morning, 19% evening) decline in local news viewership since 2007. Viewership is an important determinant of advertising revenue, which has an induced impact on the resources reinvested into the station (Littleton, 2017).

The need for resources in sports departments can rival other departments in the newsroom. While the staff is often substantially smaller in sports departments, personnel, travel, live coverage, and other departmental demands can be costly (McGuire et al., 2015). TV stations cover colleges and universities, semi- and professional sports teams, local athletes (both individual and teams), and a variety of other sport organizations that are in their viewing area. Those sport entities often travel, sometimes frequently, for competitions. The TV stations are responsible for resourcing those stories, some of which can come at a substantial cost. Costs are increasing, revenue and resources are subsequently declining, the demand for unique content is expanding, and the platforms to service content are diversifying, which adds pressure to media practitioners. In some cases, as Shultz and Sheffer (2014) asserted, this has led to stations significantly limiting or abandoning their sports departments altogether.

That, of course, has not yet become the fait accompli for most sports departments in the United States. Solutions to these problems have, however, organized around the digital first approach most stations have holistically employed (Boyle, 2017). Sports departments have unique opportunities to serve their publics in this domain. Access to sports information has typically been afforded to legacy media outlets more readily than independent or startup outlets (Chadha & Harlow, 2019). Their social media accounts are more likely to be verified (Edgerly & Vraga, 2019). Already-established relationships with coaches and players likely exist (Lowes, 1999). And, despite the reality that resources are likely dwindling, they are likely more expansive than competing, nonlegacy counterparts (Hutchins & Rowe, 2012). Legacy media has advantages in the marketplace, but, thematically, each one of these aforementioned advantages necessitates a heightened level of maintenance and production.

Women in Sports Media

The impact of routines, of course, vary among sport media practitioners and expectations based on leadership directives, market size, ownership, resources, and a host of other variables affect journalists differently. One of these considerations is gender, specifically the contrasted roles and perceptions of women working in the industry (McClearen, 2018). This particular aspect of the body of research highlights two important foundational constructs for this study. First, it illuminates the added challenges that women face in a hegemonic environment (Harrison, 2018). It also provides prospective on the private-versus-public lives of broadcast media practitioners that is not exclusive to women but is an elevated consideration in a digitally accessible marketplace (Antunovic, 2019). The latter part of this dichotomy was particularly informative for this study in that it paired historical research that noted women suffer higher burnout rates comparable to men in journalism positions (Reinardy, 2009) with contemporary practices that create increased vulnerabilities for female practitioners (Antunovic, 2019). In other words, it is not getting any easier for women as more emphasis is given to digital platforms (Chen et al., 2018).

Whiteside and Hardin (2013) wrote, “The process by which women’s marginalization is normalized, also happens through the deployment of ideology related to workplace routines considered commonsense” (p. 150). Both authors have done extensive work investigating the large swath of factors that inhibit equity in both the coverage of women’s sports and the status of women in the workforce. Yet, the aforementioned normalization of marginalizing practices has created an immersive culture of constraining behavior and a divergent standard for male counterparts (Antunovic & Whiteside, 2018). The work environment, therefore, creates a culture where assessment is based on objectifying women (Harrison, 2018) and subsequently suggests that content is consumed for dissimilar intents based on the gender of the practitioner. Female journalists, as Harrison argued, are evaluated—at least in part—on their physical appearance, which infers that their sexuality is a motivation to engage with that journalist. This working dynamic creates an even more complicated layer when considering the capacity of social platforms.

Accessibility and interactivity of online media presents an enticing duality for content producers and consumers alike. Uploading breaking or updated news to social and mobile platforms allows for a wider reach. The ability to allow commentary in the form of comment sections or conversation tools on social media then adds a layer of engagement (Morehead, O’Hallarn & Shapiro, 2016). The combination, though, allows for breakdowns of certain safeguards that people are generally afforded in their daily lives (Everbach, 2018). Women, especially, face harassing behavior, or as Everbach (2018) referred to it as “cyber harassment” (p. 134). The disparagement, which is troubling in its own right (Antunovic, 2019), becomes threatening when viewers can use these tools to enact menacing behavior. That extreme condition was seen with the violent murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, broadcast journalists at WDBJ in Roanoke, VA. The shooter used the gruesome imagery as an opportunity to display his motives on social media sites (Shear et al., 2015).

The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma through the Journalism School at Columbia University released a report in 2017 stated that journalists who have had broad safety training have noted a positive response to that instruction. Included in these trainings are sexual assault, sexual harassment, risk assessment, and other relevant aspects to this conversation. The report, however, noted that “many journalists’ safety training is not current” and the “lack of training on gender-based violence as well as other gender- and culture-related topics are major gaps, as is gender equity among trainers” (Shapiro et al., 2017, p. 5). These findings, again, are not exclusive to female journalists and holistically posit that there is a need for increased precaution among practitioners that is, at least in part, necessitated because of the shifting digital landscape. But, as Everbach (2018) noted, because of the broader visibility of journalists enhanced by social media, female journalists still face traditional objectification but are now having those negative interactions in the public sphere via social media.

Conceptual Framework

This study used an amalgamation of Moritz (2015) and Ketterer et al. (2014) as a conceptual framework to organize this exploratory research around ideas related to emergent technologies and behaviors as well as opportunities and tensions that exist for sports television practitioners. Moritz’s (2015) qualitative analysis of digital media’s role in sports journalism was pivotal to this research for two important reasons. First, the use of institutional theory—variables related to beliefs, norms, practices, and other salient institutions—which enables and compels scholarly investigations into news routines, was a structural influence. It is important to consider the contrast between tried-and-true journalistic methods and new age demands. Secondly, Moritz illuminated an acceptance among practitioners that digital media was now part of their job responsibility, regardless if they preferred it or not.

Ketterer et al. (2014) also provided two important conceptual principles that guided this work. First, the significance of convergent media and the increasing demand for people who possess the skillset to be multimedia practitioners was instrumental in understanding the talent demands in sports departments. Additionally, they distinguished between newspaper and television practitioners in various skills and abilities. This separation is important in this study’s ability to add to the literature on news routines at local broadcast media outlets, specifically because this study only examined local television journalists. Both Moritz (2015) and Ketterer et al. (2014) focused on newspapers; the latter included television as well. Further, both articles looked to explain an evolutionary perspective on the industry. This study accepted those findings and explored the nuances of trying to flourish in a broadcast environment.

The purpose of this study was to examine local sports television practitioners’ news routines in this current media landscape. The researchers were particularly interested in the following aspects: (a) social media’s impact on news gathering, including but not limited to self-perceived conflicts of interests—or exterior pressures to conduct journalism impartially; (b) public perception factoring into the job; (c) privacy, as a consideration of the job; and (d) multimedia elements infringing on what was agreed upon contractually with the media practitioner. In order to capture an essence of each of the aforementioned contributing factors, the following research questions were constructed:

Research Question 1: How has social media impacted news gathering routines for legacy sports journalists at the local level?

Research Question 2: How does public perception factor into performing the tasks and routines of a journalist?

Research Question 3: What role do privacy and safety have in the daily routines of a local sports television journalist?

Research Question 4: How have shifting expectations in the local news domain, especially in the digital first era, impacted the daily routines of local sports journalists?

Method

Researchers used Nielsen’s September 2018 DMA rank (Nielsen, 2019) as a benchmark for determining the current local media market landscape and the corresponding market size for each participant. Nielsen’s rankings listed 210 media markets that would be in effect through 2019, with New York as the largest television market and Glendive, Montana as the smallest market. The researchers employed a combination of stratified, random, and purposeful sampling practices to recruit participants for this study. In order to reach saturation in this exploratory endeavor, a stratified approach was initially used to divide the 210 markets equally. Media markets were clustered into groups of seven (markets 1–7, 8–14, 15–21, 22–28, 29–35, etc.) and one participant from each cluster was interviewed. This allowed for 30 participants from a wide range of media markets, demographics, managerial positions, and experience levels to contribute to this study.

This exploratory research intended to capture journalistic behavior across the United States among varying levels of job titles, years of experience, and gender. A majority (22) of participants were recruited randomly to partake in this study. Journalists were indiscriminately emailed through their station email addresses based on their standing in a particular market cluster. The first journalist to confirm an interview from a market cluster was selected as the participant from that group. The Women’s Center for Media (2019) reported that women accounted for approximately 21% of the mobile and social sports media content that was reviewed in 2018. Therefore, the researchers correspondingly aspired to include a minimum of 21% female participation, which required purposeful sampling. Each researcher had experience working in the industry, so once the needs of the representative sample were established, purposeful sampling was employed to recruit more women and participants of color. The researchers did not choose participants they had direct relationships with, but instead were associated with various individual contacts that they had in the industry.

Each participant consented to participate in the study verbally based on the primary researcher’s institutional review board’s (IRB) protocol. Their names, station call letters, and other identifying characteristics will remain anonymous with pseudonyms assigned in the findings. Table 1, modeled after Moritz (2015), shows the participants’ pseudonyms (selected by the researchers and intended to correspond to the participants’ gender), years of experience, job title, and associated DMA cluster.

Table 1.

Participants.

Pseudonym	Gender	Experience (Years)	Job Title	DMA Cluster
Steven	Male	22	Sports anchor/reporter	1–7
Joseph	Male	8	Sports director	8–14
Gerard	Male	2	Sports director	15–21
Kyle	Male	14	Sports director	22–28
Dylan	Male	11.5	Sports anchor/reporter	29–35
Stephanie	Female	8	Sports anchor/reporter	36–42
Fran	Female	10	Sports anchor/reporter	43–49
Jill	Female	3	Sports anchor/reporter	50–56
Peter	Male	35	Sports director	57–53
Jeffery	Male	6	Sports anchor/reporter	64–70
Gareth	Male	5.5	Sports anchor/reporter	71–77
Rodney	Male	12	Sports director	78–84
Michael	Male	30	Sports director	85–91
Alan	Male	3.5	Sports director	92–98
Brian	Male	32	Sports director	99–105
Shawna	Female	2.5	Sports anchor/reporter	106–112
Carl	Male	8	Sports director	113–119
Devin	Male	1	Sports anchor/reporter	120–126
Frank	Male	19	Sports director	127–133
Gary	Male	6	Sports director	134–140
Harold	Male	37	Sports director	141–147
Ivan	Male	33	Sports director	148–154
Hannah	Female	6	Sports anchor/reporter	155–161
Jack	Male	9	Sports director	162–168
Liam	Male	1	Sports anchor/reporter	169–175
Nelson	Male	10	Sports director	176–182
Allison	Female	5.5	Sports anchor/reporter	183–189
Oscar	Male	1	Sports anchor/reporter	190–196
Trevor	Male	2	Sports director	197–203
Emma	Female	3	Sports director	204–210

Data Collection

Semistructured interviews with 30 journalists were conducted at a minimum of 15 min per interview. Researchers incorporated the conceptual framework set forth by Ketterer et al. (2014) and Moritz (2015) in the initial construction of the questions. They then solicited feedback from a current local television sports journalist regarding the list of questions to assess relevance. The journalist suggested some revisions, which the researchers assimilated into the final list. Finally, the researchers added a section of short answer questions in order to render supplementary quantitative data that further answered the research questions. Included in those questions were the following: “how many years have you been in the business,” “do you have any other media responsibilities,” “how much time do you spend consuming media,” and “are the best years to be a person in this type of job behind you, right now, or in front of you?” The participants were then asked a series of longer form, open-ended questions. The entire list of questions is included in Appendix.

The interviews occurred via telephone with a recording device used to chronicle the conversation. Carr and Worth (2001) noted that there was little difference substantively in data gathered in face-to-face or telephone interviews, thus the conduit of telephoning the participants was sufficient for this study. It also allowed for researchers to include participants from across the United States, which aided in achieving saturation. The interviewers had an interview protocol to inform the conversation and keep the questions similar for each interviewee (Bernard & Ryan, 2009). Once the interviews were completed, a researcher transcribed the conversation onto a Microsoft Word file with any distinguishing information describing the participants’ identity kept confidential.

Data Analysis

Cottingham et al.’s (2015) employment of inductive analysis through the constant comparative method guided this study’s analysis process. Specifically, their deliberate and arduous collaboration among several researchers examining each line of transcribed text, rigorous adherence to trustworthiness, and an attempt at triangulating data were all attempted in this study as well. The inductive process began with researchers assigning codes in each transcript line by line. Researchers initially worked on this analysis independently reviewing the transcripts designating initial codes and then rechecked the codes upon additional review that was suggested by Holt et al. (2018). Once the data were reviewed twice by the individual researchers, subthemes were assembled devoid specific respondent or question (Cottingham et al., 2015). Collaboratively, the research team thoroughly distilled the data into larger themes that specifically addressed the research questions. While Cottingham et al. (2015) used an objective third party to enhance trustworthiness, the researchers in this study included respondent validation through member checking (Smith et al., 2014). The participants of this study received a draft of the findings, which allowed them to dispute or suggest amendments to any of the findings. None of the participants offered modifications.

Findings

Themes were shaped in accordance with corresponding research questions that initially inspired this exploratory research. Each theme is defined in its subsection with relevant corresponding quantitative data taken from the short answer portion of the interviews (Table 2), intertwined to further enhance the overall thematic representation.

Table 2.

Short Answer Responses.

Question/Prompts	M	%	n
Years in the business	11.3
Job title
Sports director		56.7	17
Sports anchor/reporter		43.3	13
Best part of job
Telling stories		36.6	11
Covering sports		26.7	8
Community engagement		16.6	5
Every day is different		6.7	2
Watching athletes/games		6.7	2
Exciting		3.3	1
Flexible to be creative		3.3	1
Worst part of job
Hours		43.3	13
Deadlines		13.3	4
Lack of staffing		10.0	3
Social media		6.7	2
Avoiding OT		3.3	1
Competitiveness of industry		3.3	1
Decline of local news		3.3	1
Lack of communication		3.3	1
Loneliness		3.3	1
Pressure		3.3	1
Covering sports		3.3	1
Visibility		3.3	1
Golden years
Ahead of us		70	21
Behind us		23.3	7
Right now		6.7	2
Hold other jobs
Yes		63.3	19
No		36.7	11
Average hours consuming news media (daily)	8.2
Source of news
Digital/social		73.3	22
Combination		23.3	7
Traditional		3.3	1
Social media contractually required
Yes		63.3	19
No		36.7	11
Enough time to do your job
Yes		60	18
No		40	12

Social Media: Opportunity or Albatross?

Social media—Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the like—were a subset of a larger digital media component recognized in the journalism landscape. The researchers defined the “social media: albatross or opportunity” theme as journalists’ perception of an increased emphasis on social media platforms, which bifurcated the journalists’ responses, largely being defined as an opportunity or a detriment to professional promise. In the local television realm, respondents shared views ranging from their social media helped them perform their jobs to it was a hindrance in their day-to-day responsibilities to social media was ruining journalism.

All 30 participants in this study admitted to having a presence on at least one social media platform. Sixty-three percent (n = 19) of the participants were contractually obligated to have a social media account and 73% (n = 22) disclosed they consume their news through digital/social platforms exclusively. There was a unanimous acquiescence that social media was part of the journalism complex. There was, however, a conspicuous amount of diversity in whether that presence impacted the industry positively or negatively. Joseph summarized the overall dichotomy as a “double-edged sword.” He added, “[Social media is] a positive in the fact that there’s so much news there. Every single day I use some sort of content from social media in my sportscast. But it’s also a negative because it’s a distractor.”

Social media’s demand on time presented a disruptive flow for the journalists’ processes. Those who shared that social media had negative impacts on their job or created a nuisance in trying to perform the functions of journalism, largely focused on time as the most explicit issue. The other contributing factor, however, was the triviality of social platforms and the dissonance it created by dedicating time to a medium that was perceived as largely inconsequential. Michael, with this construct in mind, flatly stated, “journalism doesn’t exist anymore.” His objection to contemporary social media practices, namely, a lack of editorial oversight, inaccuracies, or absences of named sources, was a representative commentary on the deficiency of culpability. “No one is being held accountable anymore. If you’re wrong, where’s the penalty? There’s no penalty. I could go on Twitter right now and say whatever I want about anything and it doesn’t have to be true.” He added, “I’d like to see one time where a boss actually penalizes someone for being incorrect.” Ivan, more succinctly, stated, “It’s a distraction from doing the traditional part of my job.”

The paradoxical relationship between speed and accuracy had a granular but substantive influence on the participants’ perception of social media. The tenets of journalism rooted in accuracy and objectivity took precedence when describing matters related to process or legacy platforms. For instance, Gareth noted, “I try not to do everything based on what the viewers will think but I take their perceptions of me seriously.” The term “viewer” was operative in that he is employing a traditional lens; note he does not say “follower” or “friend.” Social media, conversely, inspired a less stringent discourse surrounding behavior. Jeffery, referring to errors in reporting, explained:

I’ve done it a thousand times and people at our station have made them a thousand times. Luckily, social media apps are letting you make corrections in real time, so you don’t have to delete your posts and it’s easy to correct them and it’s not a huge issue.

It seemed unthinkable to the researchers that a journalist would admit making mistakes “a thousand times” on traditional platforms. The contrast illuminated some operational considerations that seemed to affect the journalists’ engagement with multiple mediums. Their traditional roles maintained a sanctity that was constrained by the lack of immediacy, while their social responsibilities were relatively unencumbered but susceptible to frivolity.

Perception and Gender Differences

Navigating new age demands with legacy expectations presented tension among respondents who were trying to satisfy these two competing complexities. Part and parcel to legacy expectations was the aforementioned duty to journalism but also the challenges facing women in this marketplace. The latter, specifically, highlighted both the importance of principled facets of journalism—accuracy, credibility, objectivity, and so on—on all journalists, but it also alluded to a contrasting set of expectations for women and men. Legitimacy, in some cases, was an addendum to the aforementioned tenets of journalism that female participants felt were necessary, unlike their male counterparts. Other female participants noted the entire paradigm was judged differently for women as opposed to men. Either way, there were notable influences derived from audience perception. This theme was defined as audience discernment of journalists’ abilities that motivated behaviors and routines based on the journalists’ circumstances as legacy and/or female legacy practitioners.

Words like “credible,” “objective,” and “trust” were mainstays among participants in framing engagement with viewers (television) or followers (digital/social). These responses generally were not presented as platitudes or trivialities. They were, instead, employed as conceptual frameworks and aspirational standards. “You want to be factually correct,” said Steven. “If you blow one story, you lose credibility to a viewer and they’ll always think of you as an idiot.” This statement was devoid of a specific medium or time and it emphasized the significance of the viewer’s perspective. The researchers were especially drawn to the use of the term “idiot” in Steven’s response because of its harshness. Steven chose a word that decried one’s character, not ability. Shawna described viewer engagement similarly, “You have to brand yourself in this industry because that’s how you’re going to gain credibility and that’s how you’re going to get people to trust you.”

The branding Shawna was referring to incorporated ability, of course, but it was primarily focused on the audience’s interpretations of the journalist more holistically. This space, as mentioned previously, was more complex for women. “I pride myself on being correct and putting out truthful information and having those journalistic values,” Fran explained. “But, I would be lying if I told you that what you look like…isn’t half or more of your credibility.” Some female participants like Stephanie and Hannah believed credibility compelled women to incorporate the foundational elements of journalism but also required an additional layer of legitimacy that accommodated the audience. Stephanie, for example, felt like she needed to be a nurturing, less invasive practitioner:

When I started in sports, I really had to prove myself and the way I did that, which was most natural, was to apply my news skills and asking questions that to me, seemed so obvious but ruffled some feathers because they weren’t being asked in such a direct way; more of a softer spot. And, that’s how I established my credibility.

Hannah simply resigned herself to not participate in common ancillary opportunities that her male counterparts engaged in:

I don’t do play by play or color analytics because I’ve sat there, with the people I love the most, and we’re listening to the four guys and one girl and them saying, “yeah she’s just there to fill the girl quota and she doesn’t know what she’s talking about because she’s never played the sport.”

Fran’s interpretation of the landscape was marginally different. Her belief was that women are assessed by a completely different metric than men. She argued, “If you are speaking to a man who does sports, they will say credibility is so significant and that it’s very powerful. If you’re good looking, that’s credibility for a woman. If you are hot, you get a pass.” She also added that viewers have approached her and said, “‘Oh I didn’t hear a thing that you said, I just looked at your legs. Or, instead I just looked at you.’ I’m really glad I put so much time and effort into doing that story.” These perspectives, while similar, seemed to provide only two routine-based outcomes for women practitioners: (a) women can amend common practices to suit viewers’ expectations or (b) they can surrender to the reality that objectification is a component of their credibility. Neither was a factor among the male participants.

Conceding Privacy

The increased visibility created by emphasizing a digital first presence and more community engagement, in addition to their already visible position as on-air personalities, were just a couple of areas that shaped an increasingly observable day-to-day existence. Participants were asked what the best and worst parts of their jobs were in the short answer section. There were 7 and 12 unique answers, respectively, for each question. The three most popular answers to the “best part” were telling stories (37.6%, n = 11), covering sports (26.7%, n = 8), and community engagement (16.6%, n = 5). The most repeated “worst part” answers were hours (43.3%, n = 13) and deadlines (13.3%, n = 4). This theme was defined as the increasing supplemental demands to traditional responsibilities, thus creating fewer opportunities for privacy. Privacy, in this context, was considered the ability to maintain a level of confidentiality as it related to personal information.

None of the participants insinuated that they were famous—even locally—and there were no suggestions that celebrity was a factor in performing their jobs. Several did, however, acknowledge that being on television put them in the public’s purview. Michael stated, “One thing I learned very early from the first 2 years of being on television is you are never off the air. You’re on the air when you go to a restaurant, at the supermarket, or at a game.” Mobile and social media requirements have seemingly bolstered conspicuousness for the participants, in many cases augmenting the ambiguity of being “on” or “off” in public. “There is a degree to which privacy does not exist,” Dylan admitted. “I’ve accepted that as part of the deal.” Finding a balance was a challenge for some of the participants. Steven noted, “Yeah, it’s hard to be as private as you want to be because you’re a public figure.”

The aforementioned responses highlighted the obvious considerations about privacy related to visibility. The participants almost unanimously stated they were not surprised by the public recognition the job generated. It could be argued, in fact, that the participant’s engagement with this aspect of privacy was actually somewhat ordinary. As Rodney stated, “I just googled myself for the sake of argument and found my home address in less than 5 min,” a practice “ordinary” people engage in. Allison was one of several participants who described having professional and personal social media accounts, again, not a behavior exclusive to this work environment.

There was some uniqueness to the privacy and safety considerations of sports media practitioners, however, and participants did mention routine-oriented impacts that stemmed from thinking about them. Several participants acknowledged the opportunity of spectacle as an enticing element to have audience members instigate unwelcome engagements. Oscar summarized that feeling, stating, “I wouldn’t say I have a lot of eyes on me, but there are eyes on you and people will potentially find a way to bring you down and you never want that to happen.” Intellectual property, primarily in the form of video, can also motivate “people to ask for footage” as Trevor said. Ultimately, journalists are offering information for the public to consume and some of it may not be universally appreciated. That can create discontent among viewers. “You can be a target if someone doesn’t like something,” Nelson recognized. “They’ll let you know whether it’s email, Facebook messages, text message. Like the old saying, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” A noteworthy relationship with the previous theme existed in this space. The participants, regardless of gender, submitted that the online environment facilitated a concession of privacy and that reduction enabled enhanced negative engagement. None of the male participants, however, mentioned physical appearance or aesthetics in their responses, where most female participants did.

New Era Demands

Digital media encapsulates the larger scope of content that included social media, web scripts, blogs, email, and other mobile platforms that were captured in this theme. New era demands, as a theme, was specifically defined as the confluence of traditional and nontraditional aspects of the practitioners’ routines that framed the demands of the job in 2020. A majority of respondents (63.3%, n = 19) noted that they routinely engaged in other aspects of their jobs, specifically in areas like radio appearances, play-by-play jobs, podcasting, and other community-related roles. These added responsibilities ranged from positions that the participants voluntarily signed up for to additional aspects of their current jobs that may or may not have been contractually agreed to. Additionally, most stations emphasized a digital first approach and encouraged talent to be more visible in the community, especially with the previously mentioned ancillary responsibilities. This was especially persistent in how the respondents covered breaking news, which seemed to clearly align more with digital responsibilities first. The totality of these busy work schedules implied a necessity that practitioners be more organized and efficient with their time.

The complexities of meeting the audience where they are at have trickled down to these practitioners. As Jeffery put it, “Digitally, it’s an endless hole.” Gareth expanded, “I feel like we’re a little more stretched because there’s another beast that needs to be fed instead of just the normal beast.” Hannah added, “The station is starting to realize that they can’t monetize Twitter and Facebook, so now it goes back to the website. Now I have to post on the website, then post on social media for clicks and that’s a little more time.” The following quote from Joseph encapsulated how the practitioners viewed the increased demands in their jobs:

I think there are a lot more responsibilities now than there was 10 years ago. It’s not just the outside responsibilities. Now you’re expected to host, anchor, report, produce, write, and if you can’t do it all you’re not gonna (sic) get a job in this business anymore.

A subtheme that contributed to the framework of the larger new era demands theme was the multifaceted construct of the job. It included responses like: “I am on-air, but that is one third of the two thirds of social and digital,” said Fran; “It’s a lot more work because it’s not just TV anymore,” noted Harold; “I’m often shooting a lot of my own video, most of what I do is on my own. I barely consult with my bosses or management with what I plan on doing. It’s different because it’s so independent,” explained Stephanie. Multidimensionality was highlighted by responses that the job itself was evolving. Rodney captured this common sentiment, stating, “Content is king. It keeps us relevant in news. How we deliver it changes and we have to blend that delivery to stay on top of things.” Hannah added, “A lot of my job is enterprising stories because nowadays, when it comes to sports highlights, we are starting to move away from that because you can get them anywhere.”

The new era demands theme also incorporated participant feedback on their specific routines. Nearly every respondent stated explicitly that they had a routine in their job, but it was process-oriented because the stories they covered changed daily. For instance, Carl explained, “You have to have a routine and you have to have one to do this job at a high level and in the right amount of time.” The specifics of the routines were less precise. “I’ve gotten it down to a science since I’ve been doing it for a while now. I always have a timeline in my head, and I tell myself I want to be done by a certain time,” explained Jill. Finally, Michael concluded:

Today, with the way things are because of the implementation of social media or the occasional radio interview, if you aren’t organized and don’t know what you’re doing hour-to-hour, especially if you run an entire department like me, then the industry will swallow you up.

A push toward digital first was uniform during these conversations, but navigating the nuances of producing content under different circumstances led to disparate solutions.

Discussion

Ali’s (2016) argument that the erosion of local journalism negatively impacted the stakeholders of that community did not exclude sports journalists. His projection of “the public good” created by the collective values of local journalism—informative, accountable, helpful—echoed Carey’s (2000) declaration that the values of local journalism cooperatively were synonymous with democracy. It has been more than 5 years since inquiries by Ketterer et al. (2014) and Moritz (2015), which is a relatively brief amount of time in the history of the institution of journalism. Since the life span of social media has only been about 14 years, however, a half of a decade is a substantial amount of time. One of the most notable findings from the aforementioned work was highlighting the ways digital journalism seeped into the daily foray of local journalists regardless of platform (Ketterer et al., 2014; Moritz, 2015). This current study witnessed a maturity to that reshifting focus and provided an update on routines that underscored a changing approach to news gathering.

Digital first was not mentioned specifically in Ketterer et al. (2014) or Moritz (2015) but was thematically at its birth point at that time. Whiteside et al. (2012) also alluded to the concept and specifically described the importance of emerging media and competency requirements for prospective practitioners, which was another signal that this shift was occurring. But, there was seemingly a reticence to explicitly state that the institution of news was going to go digital first. That is no longer the case (Bender et al., 2019; Social Media Policy & Guidelines, n.d.). News directors, journalists, and even scholars have all acknowledged that the 2020s will continue to see a more directed digital first approach to journalism (Cohen, 2018). Meeting the audience where they are at has always been a staple of any media entity (McEnnis, 2018) and viewers are increasingly moving to social media and online (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Social media appeared as the standard bearer for the ancillary demands bestowed upon local sports television journalists who participated in this study, which was highlighted in the social media theme. Social media was also generally accepted as part of the shifting expectations stated in the new era demands theme. The two complementary themes rendered macrolevel perspectives that were topically related to increased expectations and departures from previously established norms within the discipline (Boyle, 2017). There were, however, important disparate nuances that provided important perspectives in this contemporary landscape. First, social media did not carry the same legitimacy as legacy responsibilities among participants. Other supplementary opportunities like play-by-play jobs or radio appearances were not perceived in the same superficial way social media was. Second, the fluidity of social media was bemoaned by participants who did not care for social media because of its unrelenting presence; it was not something turned “on” or “off.” There were, conversely, participants who saw the advantages and opportunities social media presented in managing responsibilities or excelling at the job. The new era demands were simply positioned as normal expectations.

The findings that answered Research Questions 2 and 3, the perception and gender differences and conceding privacy themes, respectively, also had a macrolevel similarity. The themes positioned audience members as the focal points in dictation of outcomes. In the perception theme, credibility and the tenets of journalism were foundational in the decisions made to address the journalists’ conduct. The lack of privacy theme was framed by the availability audiences had to practitioners and how that was a viable conduit to building relationships that were integral in the journalist/audience relationship. The principal separation between the two themes was that the necessity to participate in behavior that aided the journalists’ market viability also created compromised safety and privacy in enacting those very behaviors with definitively discrepant outcomes between women and men. Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the amalgamation of the two themes is that, fundamentally, men did show signs of discomfort with their online personas hinting at some vulnerabilities (Reinardy, 2009). Women not only had the same negative interactions with relationship to credibility and perception holistically, they were also subjected to that adverse discourse in public forums like social media (Antunovic, 2019).

Reese’s (2001) assertion that technology, time, space, and norms were constraints on journalists in their quest to produce content remained conceptually relevant in this study. The details that updated this framework, however, had more contemporary outcomes. The constant in any journalistic pursuit will always include time, more specifically deadlines, but even those deadlines were more fluid with the persistent access to social media. Further, technology, space, and norms frame an additional shift that this research also highlighted. Mobile technology, while accessible and widely used, is an added technological component that is nuanced in storytelling. As Peter mentioned at the end of the social media theme, work is now harder to shut off, which is an element of time and space. Social media now affords journalists the ability to produce content from the studio, the field, or even at home. Space is now completely undefined in this sense. Finally, norms, or industry standards, have obviously shifted by prioritizing digital content.

Norms, regrettably, have not necessarily transformed in all facets of this industry. As Fran stated in her commentary, women are routinely marginalized in their on-air capacity, which of course is a long-standing norm (Whiteside & Hardin, 2013). The troubling reality that emerges from the findings of this study is that social media is an intermediary for increased interactivity between practitioner and audience. In essence, journalists are told to be online more, audience members can interact with the journalists easier, and there are fewer safeguards for harassment (Antunovic, 2019). Appearance pressure remains constant in legacy form (Harrison, 2018) but is seemingly exacerbated in an online form (Chen et al., 2018). Undoubtedly, female journalists are at the forefront of this harassment, which tends to be aimed at their ability to talk about sports or their appearance. The challenge, then, is 2-fold: (1) female journalists in the sports space continue to need more diverse opportunities in all facets of local media and (2) managers must audit performance assessments through a lens that acknowledges women journalists are forced to earn audience credibility through a different set of standards than their male counterparts.

Limitations and Conclusion

The scholars performing this exploratory research felt that saturation was met with the 30 participants who offered their perspectives of their jobs. The distribution of women resembled what the researchers felt was a reflective representation of the industry. There were two limitations with the sample, however. First, there was an equal blend of sports directors and sports reporters/anchors. Increasing the number of both categories of practitioners would have aided in the power of the sample. Second, this was a sample of practitioners in the United States, and therefore, the data have a specific Anglo-American viewpoint. Finally, the quantitative data offered as supplementary perspective that was useful for context but lacked large-scale generalizability. The researchers believe that the quantitative information added a granular perspective of the participants’ experiences, an appropriate snapshot considering the exploratory nature of the research but does not necessarily reflect numbers beyond the scope of this study.

The findings of this scholarship do offer insight into the opportunities and constraints that exist in the contemporary landscape of local television sports journalism. The data also illuminate important questions about process and the ability of these practitioners to tell comprehensive stories. The practitioners, at the core of their responses, did universally seem committed to addressing both of these issues. The opportunities and constraints presented important details related to the routine aspects of these journalists. Top-down mandates related to digital first and social media engagement highlighted the demand for establishing routines. As was stated in the findings, those routines were grounded in staying updated with information that was relevant to viewers, preparing content whenever there was time to do so, and finding a balance between the legacy and digital demands. The latter seemingly benefited from a supplementary relationship—one that drove attention to the other—that could create a space for practitioners who utilized each well.

The ability of practitioners to tell important, robust stories was more complex. The mandate of routines certainly helped the participants tell meaningful stories in their assessment, but constraints did create roadblocks. Credibility with the audience was the currency a majority of the journalists valued the most. At odds with earning that credibility, though, is one’s ability to be consistently accurate, while simultaneously fast. And, some female journalists feel they must incorporate sexual appeal into the equation. There was a tremendous amount of tension that existed because of all of these factors—and others—which indicates the process is flawed. The journalists, in essence, will continue to do their best with the resources they have been afforded, but the system does not allow for them to maximize their storytelling abilities, which impacts the information that is distributed to audiences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Timothy Mirabito

Appendix

References

Ali

(2016). The merits of merit goods: Local journalism and public policy in a time of austerity. Journal of Information Policy, 6(1), 105–128.

Andrews

K. T.

Caren

(2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841–866.

Antunovic

. (2019). “We wouldn’t say it to their faces”: Online harassment, women sports journalists, and feminism. Feminist Media Studies, 19(3), 428–442.

Antunovic

Whiteside

. (2018). Feminist sports media studies: State of the field. In Harp

Loke

Bachmann

(Eds.), Feminist approaches to media theory and research. Comparative feminist studies. Palgrave Macmillan.

Belt

T. L.

Just

M. R.

(2008). The local news story: Is quality a choice? Political Communication, 25(2), 194–215.

Bender

J. R.

Davenport

L. D.

Drager

M. W.

Fedler

(2019). Writing and reporting for the media (12th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bernard

H. R.

Ryan

G. W.

(2009). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Sage.

Boyle

(2017). Sports journalism: Changing journalism practice and digital media. Digital Journalism, 5(5), 493–495.

Carey

J. W.

(2000). Journalism and democracy are names for the same thing. Nieman reports. https://nieman.harvard.edu/articles/journalism-and-democracy-are-names-for-the-same-thing/

10.

Carr

E. C. J.

Worth

(2001). The use of the telephone interview for research. Nursing Times Research, 6(1), 511–524.

11.

Chadha

Harlow

(2019). Bottom lines and deadlines: Examining local digital news startups’ content across different revenue-earning sites. Journalism Practice, 13(6), 723–741.

12.

Chen

G. M.

Paromita

Chen

V. Y.

Mekelburg

Springer

Troger

. (2018). ‘You really have to have a thick skin’: A cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918768500

13.

Cohen

N. S.

(2018). At work in the digital newsroom. Digital Journalism, 7(5), 571–591.

14.

Cole

(1998). Instinct, savvy and ratlike cunning: Training local journalists. In Murphy

Franklin

(Eds.), Making the local news journalism in context (2nd ed., pp. 62–76). Routledge.

15.

Comer

J. C.

Wikle

T. A.

(2015). Access to locally-oriented television broadcasting in a digital era. Applied Geography, 60, 280–287.

16.

Cottingham

Blais

Gearity

Bogle

Zaplac

(2015). A Qualitative examination of Latin American wheelchair sport practitioners’ marketing practices. Journal of Sport for Development, 3(5), 8–19.

17.

Cranney

(2019). Local (journalism) matters. Investigative reporters and editors, Inc. The IRE Journal, 42(3), 18–21.

18.

Edgerly

Vraga

E. K.

(2019). The blue check of credibility: Does account verification matter when evaluating news on Twitter? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(4), 283–287.

19.

Everbach

(2018). “I realized it was about them…not me”: Women sports journalists and harassment. In Vickery

J. R.

Everbach

(Eds.), Mediating misogyny: Gender, technology, and harassment (pp. 131–149). Springer.

20.

Fischer

M. C.

(2014, June 16). Some newspapers to staff: Social media isn’t optional, it’s mandatory. http://ajr.org/2014/06/03/newspapers-staff-social-media-isnt-optional-mandatory/

21.

Gans

H. J.

(1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. Northwestern University Press.

22.

Harrison

. (2018). “You have to have thick skin”: Embracing the affective turn as an approach to investigating the treatment of women working in sports media. Feminist Media Studies, 18(5), 952–955.

23.

Henderson

(2019). The seriousness of storytelling: What constraints to professional news routines reveal about the state of journalistic autonomy in local television newsrooms. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919854651

24.

Holt

N. L.

Pankow

Camiré

Côté

Fraser-Thomas

McDonald

D. J.

(2018). Factors associated with using research evidence in national sport organisations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(10), 1111–1117.

25.

Hutchins

Rowe

(2012). Sport beyond television the internet, digital media and the rise of networked media sport. Routledge.

26.

Ketterer

McGuire

Murray

(2014). Contrasting desired sports journalism skills in a convergent media environment. Communication & Sport, 2(3), 282–298.

27.

Kruvand

. (2012). “Dr. Soundbite”: The Making of an expert source in science and medical stories. Science Communication, 34(5), 566–591.

28.

Lee

S. K.

Lindsey

N. J.

Kim

K. S.

(2017). The effects of news consumption via social media and news information overload on perceptions of journalistic norms and practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 75(1), 254–263.

29.

Littleton

(2017, July 25). Local TV news feels squeeze amid station consolidation. http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/local-news-sinclair-tribune-nexstar-deal-1202506598/

30.

Lowes

(1999). Inside the sports pages: Work routines, professional ideologies, and the manufacture of sports news. University of Toronto Press.

31.

Martin

Mccrain

(2019). Local news and national politics. The American Political Science Review, 113(2), 372–384.

32.

McClearen

(2018). Introduction: Women in sports media: New scholarly engagements. Feminist Media Studies, 18(5), 942–955.

33.

McEnnis

(2018). Toy department within the toy department? Online sports journalists and professional legitimacy. Journalism, 1(1), 1–17.

34.

McGuire

Murray

Ketterer

(2015). Sports department vs. news department: Editorial control in television newsrooms. The Sport Journal, 19, 1.

35.

Mellado

(2015). Professional roles in news content. Journalism Studies, 16(4), 596–614.

36.

Morehead

C. A.

O’Hallarn

Shapiro

S. L.

(2016). Tell me how you really feel: Analyzing debate, desire, and disinhibition in online sports news stories. International Journal of Sport Communication, 9(1), 13–35.

37.

Moritz

(2015). The story versus the stream: Digital media’s influence on newspaper sports journalism. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(4), 397–410.

38.

The Nielsen Company. (2019). Local television market estimates. http://www.nationalmediaspots.com/media-stats/Nielsen-2018-2019-DMA-Ranks.pdf

39.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/

40.

Pew Research Center. (2019). Local TV news fact sheet. https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/local-tv-news//

41.

Reese

S. D.

(2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173–187.

42.

Reinardy

(2009). Female journalists more likely to leave newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 30(3), 42–57.

43.

Reinardy

. (2010). Need for speed onto internet classes with journalistic values. Newspaper Research Journal, 31(1), 69–83.

44.

Reinardy

(2013). Boom or bust? US television news industry is booming but burnout looms for some. Journal of Media Business Studies, 10(3), 23–40.

45.

Schudson

(1989). The sociology of news production. Media, Culture & Society, 11(3), 263–282.

46.

Schultz

Sheffer

M. L.

(2014). “Local TV sports and the Internet.” In Billings

A. C.

Hardin

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports and new media. Routledge.

47.

Serazio

(2019). The power of sports: Media and spectacle in American culture. New York University Press.

48.

Shapiro

B. A.

Newman

Slaughter

(2017). Journalists and safety training: Experiences and opinions (pp. 1–57). Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, Columbia University.

49.

Shear

M. D.

Pérez-Peña

Blinder

. (2015, August 26). Ex-broadcaster kills 2 on air in Virginia shooting: Takes own life. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/wdbj7-virginia-journalists-shot-during-live-broadcast.html

50.

Smith

Sparkes

A. C.

Caddick

(2014). Judging qualitative research. In Nelson

Groom

Potrac

(Eds.), Research methods in sports coaching (pp. 192–201). Routledge.

51.

Social Media Policy & Guidelines. (n.d.). Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

52.

Thorson

Chen

Lacy

(2020). National and local news consumption and indices of community participation in an American civic-journalism news environment. Journalism Studies, 21(4), 443–458.

53.

Tuchman

(1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 660–679.

54.

Turner

(2014). This is SportsCenter: A longitudinal content analysis of ESPN’s signature television sports-news program from 1999 and 2009. Journal of Sports Media, 9(1), 45–70.

55.

Whiteside

Hardin

(2013). The glass ceiling and beyond: Tracing the explanations for women’s lack of power in sports journalism. In Pedersen

P. M.

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 146–154). Routledge.

56.

Whiteside

Hardin

(2012). The new “toy department”? A case study on differences in sports coverage between traditional and new media. Journal of Sports Media, 7, 23–38.

57.

Women’s Center for Media (2019). The status of women in the U.S. media in 2019 [Report]. Retrieved from https://tools.womensmediacenter.com/page/-/WMCStatusofWomeninUSMedia2019