Getting paid to write about sports, with access but no deadlines or editors... Mainstream media bloggers seem to have the best of both worlds, and are in a unique position to provide insight into the blurring divide between traditional sports reporting and blogging. To learn more, we assembled a panel of three sportswriters who’ve crossed over into blogging while keeping their day jobs, and one who left the mothership for the blogger’s basement.

• Peter Abraham, The LoHud Yankees Blog, for The Journal News
• Michael Rand, Randball, for the Star-Tribune
• Dan Shanoff, formerly of ESPN’s The Daily Quickie
• Dan Steinberg, DC Sports Bog, for The Washington Post

Read on for details on how they got (or quit) their jobs, dropping ledes, the us vs. them divide, which title is better to put on business cards, and where to cover poetry readings. (Fair warning: it’s long, so get yourself a cup of coffee and put your feet up for this one.)

Erin: Dan Steinberg, you told The Big Picture that you initiated the move from beat reporter to in-house blogger for The Washington Post after covering the Winter Olympics in Turin. How tough was it to convince your bosses that the bog could fly, and how did they agree to let you do it full-time as opposed to adding a blog to your reporting responsibilities?

Steinberg: Well, I didn't do the convincing. My bosses knew what I wanted to do, but I was told such a thing was years away. Then I was told in August that Bo Jones, the Washington Post's publisher, had approved this job for basically 12 months, to see what a full-time D.C. sports blog would be like. This makes him a visionary genius. (If it's not obvious, I'm hoping he decides to re-up after the 12 months are over. As far as I know, that decision has not yet been made.)

Honestly, in these days of newsroom cost-cutting, it probably would make more sense to give me back to the college staff and make me do a local college sports blog in addition to my local college reporting. We already have Redskins, soccer, Wizards, Nationals, and Capitals blogs, plus some high school blogs, and I don't know if we really need a full-time staff blogger to cover tattoos, birthday parties and fan groups. But I do some stuff that the other folks wouldn't do, and my items are excerpted five days a week on page 2 of the sports section, which helps me feel less useless to society.

Erin: Peter and Michael, how did you get the position of in-house blogger?

Rand: I started here as a sportswriter (and still continue in that role). I've been at the newspaper on a full-time basis for 7 years; since October 2005, I've been producing and/or overseeing our revamped Page 2 in the sports section called "The Rotation," which as the name suggests is something different every day. I write features, a Q&A, a weekend wrap-up column and "The Daily Buzz," which is typically an offbeat 300-400 word news and notes type of thing. In doing this job, I found myself increasingly turning to blogs (initially Deadspin) as sources of content and amusement. I felt like StarTribune.com could be doing a general interest sports blog with some local and some national content that also had an offbeat feel to it. I pitched it to the sports and on-line bosses, and they let me have at it.

It's been a pretty hectic six months because I've continued to do everything for the newspaper that I previously did, on top of adding the blog, but it is a labor of love that has generated a pretty decent following so far.

Abraham: Nothing complicated. I did a story on baseball bloggers in Feb. of 2005 and found a few I liked. I was jealous of them to be honest because I liked the format. I convinced my bosses to let me blog the 2005 Winter Meetings. That led to the Yankees blog starting in Feb. 2006.

Erin: Dan Shanoff, ESPN is a pretty big ship to jump. What was the most surprising thing you discovered when you went out on your own?

Shanoff: "What happened to all of my page views?!?!" Seriously, what I was most surprised to find was the depth and breadth of the quality of content being produced by sports bloggers. I had been way more into the sports blogosphere than most "mainstream" sports media people, but I don't think I fully realized how vastly talented the community is – and also how supportive. I remember when the Quickie ended, Will ran a post about it on Deadspin and the Commenters relished the schadenfreude of the demise of my column. A few days after the Quickie ended, I wrote a guest-post for Deadspin and it was like I had changed teams. I was "one of them," not "one of THEM."

Rand: While I haven't quite experienced the same dichotomy as Dan, I do find the blog vs. mainstream perception to be fascinating from both sides. I think as the two poles gradually converge on each other there will be less of an "us vs. them" mentality, but right now there is clearly that attitude on both sides. A lot of blogs are pretty frontal in their distaste for ESPN (and many times rightfully so); on the other end, I've had a conversation with someone over at the Worldwide Leader that involved a lengthy and voice-raised attack on Deadspin and its credibility. It's classic underdog vs. bully right now; bloggers and their fans embrace the upstart mentality and rail against the establishment while the mainstream outlets are fearful of losing an audience share and therefore try to discount the new guy. In the end, hopefully, the cream will rise to the top as both sides gain a mutual understanding and appreciation of each other and the consumer will get the best of both worlds. I think maybe we're at the beginning of this process, but it's going to take a while.

Erin: What would you say is the biggest advantage or disadvantage of blogging vs traditional sportswriting?

Abraham: The biggest advantage is immediacy and being able to write about things (funny comments in the clubhouse) you don't have room for in the paper. Plus you also get to develop a relationship with your readers that you don't get through the paper. You find out quickly what people want to read about it and what they care about. The disadvantages, at least from my end, is that I'm my own copy editor. I'm a much better writer than I am copy editor. I have posted a few things that were pretty brutal in terms of typos and sentence structure.

Shanoff: The biggest four advantages, in order: Speed, connection to the readers, transparency and voice.

• Speed: Even if it originated in traditional media, you'll often hear about a story way more quickly from blogs than traditional media.

• Connection: Reader comments and feedback don't just create a community and extend the value of your original content, but they offer an instant feedback loop that traditional media seems to lack.

• Transparency: It is common courtesy among bloggers to link to your source; it's a virtuous cycle that almost always comes back to help the blogger. Though the field is getting more and more competitive, the collegiality has remained. It's sort of like the clubbishness that you see among mainstream sports journalists, but the difference is that bloggers are much faster to openly credit, commend and link to their colleagues.

• Voice: I used to think that news "scoops" were being increasingly commoditized. After all, as fast as your hard work can create a scoop on your newspaper Web site, I can yoink the link and be the person to explain it to my readers. But now I think that it is traditional media's opinion function that has been commoditized. Newspaper sports columnists – and sports-TV pundits, too – used to have an exclusive platform, amplifying the power of their analysis. Now, on any given topic, you'll find far more interesting and insightful opinions from a blogger than from a traditional sports-media source. And, again, back to speed: You'll get that opinion faster from a blogger, too. I rarely read sports columnists anymore, and if you've noticed, they rarely move the needle anymore.

The disadvantages of blogging? Even though all sports-bloggers combined have a much greater audience reach than any newspaper, only a handful of sports bloggers enjoy the reach of your average traditional sports-media journalist. And sports bloggers are dwarfed by the reach of TV. Even if reader consumption is fragmenting, mass media still enjoys a huge advantage in terms of reaching the largest audience possible. The other disadvantage is that most bloggers do it for free in their spare time.

Rand: To echo and reinforce what Dan said about speed, there is really nothing better than the immediacy of a blog. Yes, you get some of that simply with newspapers and other news web sites updating stories throughout the day on-line, but for immediate reaction and context – as opposed to straight news – blogs are second to none.

Steinberg: I think, for me, the voice is key. "Blog" hardly means anything any more, since there are so bloody many of them and they take such different forms. But for me, it's liberating not to have to write in a stereotypical newspaper form....not to have to worry about coming up with a stilted "lede," and not having to worry about changing "gonna" to "going to," and not having to worry about going off on tangents. Obviously readers want pith, and not self-indulgence, but it's just nice to be able to write like I'm composing an e-mail to friends, rather than churning out formulaic newspaper copy.

But I sort of disagree with what Dan Shanoff says about "far more interesting and insightful opinions" necessarily coming from blogs. We're all just writing, and anyone can write, but people in the MSM happen to be getting paid for their writing. On the whole, I still think I'm more likely to find a good idea well argued in the MSM (including sites like Yahoo and the like) than on a random blog. Obviously some blogs are extremely popular, for good reason, and those are essentially part of the mainstream at this point.

Shanoff: Aha, let me chime in with my own disagreement on Dan Steinberg being more likely to find a good idea well argued in MSM. I guess if you're saying: "I'll take one random argument from an MSM column and one post from a random blog, the MSM column will have a better argument," that's right. But I think one thing about blogs is that the endless fragmentation – by sport, by team, by individual subject – means that the best blogger on a particular topic will almost always offer a more insightful or interesting than the best MSM columnist, who – by necessity – has to cover the entire spectrum of sports in the city. But that's not really how fans consume anymore: They consume by specific affinity, which is why MSM "general" columnists have generally become so obsolete... or at the very least, substantially undermined by the depth and breadth of new offerings out there.

Erin: Do you think of yourself primarily as a sportswriter or blogger, and does there even need to be that distinction?

Rand: That's an interesting question. I guess the answer would be, "both." My writing style on the blog is not a complete deviation from how I write for the paper, but I do feel less restricted and able to be more casual on the blog. Time-wise, I'm still primarily a "sportswriter" in the sense that I spend more hours each day doing newspaper work as opposed to blogging. And I do like the balance of doing both, even though it would be interesting to see what more I could make of RandBall if it was a full-time thing.  But in the big picture, based on what type of blog I'm doing, I don't know that there needs to be that much of a distinction between "blogger" and "sportswriter." I still apply the same journalistic standards to blog posts that I would to a newspaper story. It's just that with the blog, I can essentially write as much as I want. There's unlimited space and no editor. What writer wouldn't want that?

Abraham: I like to consider myself a sportswriter who blogs. But sometimes I wonder if I'm a blogger who is a sportswriter. I'm always amazed when people who know my work only through the blog are surprised I'm getting clubhouse access. I finally started a daily post linking to my own stories so that people would understand I covered the team for a newspaper.

Steinberg: At this point I definitely consider myself a blogger who's employed by a newspaper. Which doesn't mean that I can ignore basic journalistic rules, but I feel more kinship with Dan Shanoff and, say, Matt Ufford than I do with, say, Mike Wilbon. It's about that community Shanoff is always blathering on about. And even though almost every beat writer has a blog at this point, many of them don't feel like a part of the community, at least to me. Not trying to be a snob about this; I'd love for them to be obsessed with strange t-shirts and Gilbert Arenas, but many of them are not.

Shanoff: However you all define yourselves, the fact that you find the time to write for the paper AND do a blog is something I really admire. Selfishly, I would like to see what you would be able to do if all you did was blog full-time (like Steinberg...though I guess Dan is as much a TV guy as a blogger these days...does that count as a "zing!")

Abraham: Part of the process for me is expanding on what I'm already doing in the paper for the blog. So I'm usually only reporting on something once. I haven't cut-and-pasted anything from my daily newspaper work into the blog. But I will upload audio from an interview to the blog. It creates content without much extra work.

Erin: Dan Steinberg, is there a pecking order in the sports desk? How do you interact with the rest of the sportswriters and staff? Do they get pissed at you for not having deadlines or word counts?

Steinberg: I don't know if they do. I worry that they do. More than what you mention, I worry that they resent the fact that I don't have to worry about contract negotiations or drug arrests or coaching searches or any of the stuff that makes beat work such a grind. All I have to do is attempt to entertain, which is a much easier job.

But most of the beat guys have been extremely helpful to me, feeding me offbeat stories that they can't use, linking to some of my blog items, encouraging me when I feel like quitting, etc. The fact that our beat guys all rule their beats while also blogging is just incredible to me. As for pecking order, I'm probably at the bottom.

Erin:  Are there coaches or front office executives or players who are more or less likely to take an interview request from you depending on whether you are presenting yourself as a blogger or sportswriter?

Steinberg: Well, to be fair, they all know that I work for The Washington Post. That's why my interview requests are granted. I make it clear to people that I do a blog, but I also make it clear that I work for The Washington Post. If I quit tomorrow, bought the rights to dcsportsbog.com and tried to make it on my own, a whole lot fewer of my phone calls would be returned.

Frankly, the fact that I have page 2 real estate in the newspaper also helps me very much when I'm trying to get interviews. That still has a different meaning for many people in this town than a massive story on the Web. I've said many times that the Wizards and D.C. United, as organizations, have done the most to help me with access. The Redskins have done the least, but that's not surprising, because the NFL doesn't exactly need help getting attention.

Abraham: I've done a few blog-only Q&As with players with the questions submitted from the readers. I tried to explain it to the players and they really didn't care. Most guys are more or less happy to answer your questions and don't much care what platform you're using it for. Of course it helps that I'm a beat writer and they know me. If somebody walked up to Derek Jeter and said, "I want to interview you for my blog" it might not go as well.

Erin: Dan Shanoff, how did access to sports figures change after you left ESPN?

Shanoff: Not much, because I was never a reporter or someone who had any interest in talking with sports figures. I was definitely part of the "on-the-couch," fan-point-of-view school of sports media. I used to be solicited by PR people a lot more when I was connected to ESPN, but it has been very interesting to see how PR people have increasingly embraced sports bloggers as a valuable outlet. Because I don't cover one particular topic, I think it would be harder for me to get a press credential than a blogger who focuses on one particular team or sport or subject. I'm a huge proponent of sports leagues granting wide access to bloggers, particularly "indie" bloggers – it is mutually beneficial. I get dismayed when I find out that some teams or leagues still don't get it when it comes to having a relationship with bloggers. (See this most recent thing between the NCAA and the college baseball playoffs.)

Erin: Given that some of you write both styles of stories for the same property, how do you balance them? I.e., do certain stories lend themselves more to blogging vs a column in the sports section, or how else do you decide where you're going to write about a given topic? Any examples of certain stories that land in your blog vs column?

Rand: Well, I'm fortunate right now in that my newspaper job involves looking for a lot of offbeat stories, which also lends itself to the blog. I try not to use one story/item in both places just because I feel there should be enough content for both, but on rare occasions if I like a story enough it could wind up both places. If the newspaper portion of my job changes, which it inevitably will, then all of that material would likely wind up on the blog.

But yes, there are things that seem to be better suited for the blog. For instance, Vikings head coach Brad Childress did a poetry reading at a library a month or so ago. My instincts said that had better blog value than newspaper value. On the other hand, a feature I wrote recently about a man with an amputated leg who is attempting to kayak the entire length of the Mississippi River this summer is better suited for a sit-down read that a newspaper provides.

Abraham: I definitely write differently for the paper than I do for the blog. With the paper, you can't really mix in any opinion (although that line shifts daily it seems). With the blog, you're writing for a dedicated readership that knows the team. You have to give them something they don't already know. So you give them some opinions (hopefully educated) and try and start some debates.

Steinberg: It's not my call, but my editor insists that my page 2 items have to come, verbatim, from my blog. I agree that there are different styles for newsprint and blogprint, but I'm getting overruled on this one by my editor. So I try to write one blog item a day in a style that would sort of fit into page 2 of the paper. But I don't think blogs necessarily have to be opinionated to be interesting. That's certainly one way to do a blog, but like I said, a blog can be anything. If you're bringing people something they can't find elsewhere, it can work sans opinion.

Shanoff: I think this is where Steinberg has really pioneered something as a "newspaper" blogger, going so far beyond the S.O.P. ("Here's my opinion on X.") and really adding value by doing actual reporting, which so many "indie" bloggers don't have the time, resources or – frankly – skills to pull off. (Easy now, "indie" bloggers: I didn't say all of you.) I think it created (and, frankly, proved) the model for MSM sports-blogging as it should be done by "professionals." What I find most interesting – and this is either a testament to Steinberg or an indictment of obtuse MSM sports editors – is in how few places the style, quality and template of his work has been adopted.