A major challenge confronting web journalism, especially in sports, is the lack of quality and credibility. Day in and day out, one reads on platforms like LinkedIn about ‘authors’ claiming to have written 2,000 articles in one year. A rough calculation shows that this equals a minimum of five articles per day. Assuming each piece is at least 500 words, how does one maintain such volume with quality in mind?
This is a real danger threatening journalism today, particularly on digital sports platforms, where quantity is prioritized. It is humanly impossible to achieve this for two reasons: first, there will be no originality in content, and second, producing such large numbers is a sure sign of using unfair means. For those who come from the old school of journalism, like me, we were taught never to use “I” while writing. But all that is in the past. Today, there are no checks or balances on who is writing and what is being posted.
It is one thing to write on social media and get away with it. More often than not, social media posts are treated as personal viewpoints on any topic. But for serious sports websites not to adhere to checks and balances is dangerous. A kind of dipstick check shows an alarming trend. There is no originality, and there is zero hesitation in picking from other published pieces and reproducing them with relish. The writing also reads as synthetic, showing little love for the byline—something that was once sacrosanct.
Also Read: More needs to be done to ensure that ‘fearless’ junior shooters don’t lose their way
In the good old days, when people joined the print medium, getting a byline meant hard work. Each story didn’t automatically deserve a byline; it was a rule set by old-time editors. Bylines had to be earned, either through exclusive news or special interviews. Sadly, barring a few platforms where there are checks and balances, like RevSportz, most are ready to write anything that gets published without scrutiny. Originality in content means nothing. Writers are being pushed to meet crazy deadlines. Any diligent writer will take time to think, construct, and revise a story. Then it gets screened before publishing.
No, all of that has gone for a toss. Sports stories are published almost like fiction. Some employ plagiarism check tools to see if the content has been stolen or is blatant plagiarism. Even here, if the plagiarism percentage is below a certain threshold, the platform allows such articles to get published. The fault lies with both the writers and the editors of the platform. It is humanly impossible to churn out bulk copies across multiple sports topics without resorting to recycling.
Sadly, the most important person running checks and balances, the sub-editor, has been wiped out. Writers, as these plagiarists call themselves, are ready to push stale, uninspired pieces. Forget flair, even facts are sacrificed. Today, if someone incorrectly describes Shubman Gill as a Test cricket opener, it gets published! If cricket, the most-read subject, is treated this way, imagine what happens with Olympic and Para sports. It’s a free-for-all: recycle and slap your byline on top. Conscience? It died long ago.
Also Read: The IOA infighting is a tussle no side can win, and only Indian sport loses
(Part 2 will appear on Friday)