Introduction
With the rise of the Internet and social media, sports teams and leagues no longer depend on traditional media to reach fans, and thus it has become the norm for sports organizations to employ “in-house” journalists to cover the team (Aschburner, 2007). Teams have continued the trend of limiting access to independent media outlets, and in extreme cases some teams have banned independent journalists because the teams now have their own ways of communicating and controlling their messages (Rawlinson, 2015). The “in-house” journalist is employed by a team and receives unlimited access, while being treated with the same expectations as a public relations practitioner. This study will seek to evaluate if fans are aware of this phenomenon and if they are mindful of the source of their sports news.
In 2014, Florida International University (FIU) opened its football season at home, in Miami, against Bethune-Cookman University (Ward, 2014). The Miami Herald decided not to staff the game because the FIU athletic department denied the Herald’s FIU beat reporter, David J. Neal, a press pass due to a recent article that criticized the program. The Herald boycotted the game altogether because Executive Editor Aminda Marqués Gonzalez (as cited in Ward, 2014) said, “The team does not get to choose who covers the program” (para. 8). This is just one example of how organizations and the people in control of media access have decided that they no longer need news organizations as much to deliver their messages. As the Poynter Institute’s Butch Ward (2014) stated, “as they steadily build their [teams’] capacity and expertise for communicating directly to the public, they grow bolder about telling journalists to take a walk” (para. 14). In the case of the FIU incident, Ward advised the Herald’s reporters to take matters into their own hands next time and write from the stands if the team won’t give them access, in order to take a stance on organizations trying to control the tone of media coverage.
Sports organizations, such as the FIU athletic department, can now ban or restrict journalists’ access because of a truthful report that paints the team in a negative light. They can do this simply because the organizations no longer solely rely on traditional media to get their messages to fans. This phenomenon leaves sports media members with an inherent dilemma:
The sports reporter cannot work without access, and teams and leagues are willing to withhold credentials and sources from those who would tarnish the brand, and in extreme situations, have even lobbied for the firing of reporters deemed too dangerous. (Moore, 2015, para. 9)
Incidents such as the one at FIU have become more common than not in the sports business, but it is not solely the result of teams denying access to reporters, some athletes have taken it upon themselves to shun traditional media. Famously, at the 2015 National Football League (NFL) Super Bowl Media Day Seattle Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch answered every question by stating “I’m just here so I won’t get fined” (Legwold, 2015, para. 2). Lynch cited the NFL’s policy of requiring athletes to speak to media at league-mandated events, such as the Super Bowl Media Day, where not doing so is punishable via a hefty fine.
At the 2015 National Basketball Association (NBA) All-Star Weekend, Oklahoma Thunder superstar athlete Kevin Durant echoed Lynch’s words, “To be honest, man, I’m only here talking to y’all because I have to” (Curtis, 2015, para. 23). In an article for Grantland, reporter Bryan Curtis (2015) investigated the disintegrated relationship between teams, athletes, and independent media. He observed that the Thunder press corps are especially disturbed by the lack of access granted to media members by the team, “When it comes to getting a one-on-one interview, it would be easier to get access to the leader of ISIS,” Fox Sports’ Andrew Gilman said (para. 43). The Thunder writers cited the plethora of team media or “friendly media” as a major issue that reporters have to combat. Explained by Oklahoman reporter Darnell Mayberry, “Any question I ask that’s perceived as threatening is going to look worse when these guys [team media] are asking softball questions” (para. 53).
This trend can go much further than just ignoring reporters’ questions. Some prominent sports figures have used their celebrity to force out reporters they view as a threat, as University of South Carolina football beat reporter for The State, Ron Morris, found out in 2013 (Romenesko, 2013). In 2011, USC football coach and college football legend Steve Spurrier refused to speak to the local media while Morris was in the room because of a series of “critical” articles on his coaching efforts. The conflict peaked in 2012 when Morris wrote a column questioning Spurrier’s quarterback decisions, which caused Spurrier to threaten to quit if something wasn’t done about Morris. Ultimately, Spurrier “won” the fight as Morris was banned from writing about USC football in 2013. Morris’ colleague explained, “Effectively, he’s [Morris] being forced out at the behest of the football coach, with the publisher not standing up for him” (para. 4).
In addition to team media and independent/traditional media, fans have another option for news that is growing in popularity, ‘fan sites’ (Butler & Sagas, 2007). These websites are dedicated to a specific team and include stories from professional journalists, photos and video, and forums for fans to talk amongst each other. Similar to team media there is the expectation for fan sites to cover the team in a positive light, to appease the consumers. Butler and Sagas (2007) cautioned that the similarities between traditional news outlets and fan sites, “might lead to an erosion of newspapers’ standing as a primary source of responsible, reliable journalism” (p. 24).
In addition to restricting access and banning journalists, some teams and leagues leverage the credentials they issue to influence the coverage (Farhi, 2011). Media credentials often include restrictive contract terms that can dictate what media members can do while they are at an event, and what they can do with the material they gather long afterwards. Furthermore, many sports organizations have policies that make it almost impossible for local news outlets to cover teams on a daily basis. For example, across sports leagues no unauthorized media organization can post any game videos. The NBA and Major League Baseball allow news sources to broadcast two minutes of interviews and footage from practice each day, and the NFL allows only 45 seconds’ worth. John Cherwa, the chairman of the Associated Press Sports Editors’ legal-affairs committee, (as cited in Farhi, 2011) said reporters are being disadvantaged. “Some of these sports were built on the publicity that we in the media gave them. They need to remember that it’s important to have independent voices covering them” (para. 11). This excessive use of control by teams extends to the college sports arena as well. Reporters who cover collegiate athletics are typically never allowed to speak to a coach or athlete without a sports information representative present, and often reporters may only speak to athletes and coaches at supervised press conferences. Such restrictive access often leaves reporters with the exact same material as their competitors, while the team media offers features that differ from traditional sources in order to secure more traffic to the team website.
While the apparent downfall of traditional sports journalism is of interest to a person who studies the media, the primary purpose of this proposed study is find out what the fans think. Do they notice or care about who the source of a story is; be it team media, traditional media, or fan sites? This study will seek to answer those questions as well as find out what the primary motivations are for fans when seeking their sports news. Are fans looking for the best insider information in their sports news or just a way to pass time? The purpose of this study is to evaluate sports fans’ motivations for consuming sports news, in an effort to gauge the importance fans place on the source of their sports news. The proposed study will continue with a review of relevant scholarly literature.
Literature Review
The literature review portion of the study is comprised of two key theoretical frameworks, with the uses and gratifications theory as the primary focus. The researcher will also provide a review of relevant research on sports fans’ uses and gratifications, followed by a brief overview of gatekeeping theory research. Finally, the guiding research questions for this proposed study are reviewed.
Uses and Gratifications Theory
According to Wang (2014), in order to understand why sports fans may turn to one media source over another one must understand and evaluate their motivations, which can be done through a look into the uses and gratifications theory. The origin of the uses and gratifications approach to research, as outlined by McQuail (2010), is in the “search for explanations of the great appeal of certain staple media contents. The central question posed is: why do people use media, and what do they use them for?” (p. 423).
According to DeSanto (2013) uses and gratifications theory argues that audience members select and use different media programs in order to gratify their needs. Furthermore, the theory recognizes that audience members are active when consuming media that serves a function they find to be of value. DeSanto cited Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch’s 1974 seminal piece, The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, which devised five assumptions of the uses and gratifications approach. The first assumption is that the audiences are active members of the process, and this use of media is considered goal-directed (DeSanto, 2013; Ruihley & Hardin, 2011). Following the first assumption is the idea that individuals select media to consume and incorporate into their lives, emphasizing the audience member’s choice rather than the media controlling the audience member.
The third assumption of the uses and gratifications theory is that there is competition amongst media for audience gratification. According to Ruihley and Hardin (2011) “there are options for audience members, and there is a choice on how to fulfill the gratification need” (p. 3). The fourth assumption argues that individuals are aware of their motives and choices. Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1973) believed that “people are sufficiently self-aware to be able to report their interests and motives in particular cases, or at least to recognize them when confronted with them in an intelligible and familiar verbal formulation” (p. 511). The fifth and final assumption outlines that researchers must analyze the motives of the audience, and judgments and opinions should be withheld while “audience orientations are explored on their own terms” (p. 511).
In an effort to analyze the uses and gratifications approach from a functional standpoint, Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas (1973) developed 35 needs that motivate people to use certain media. The researchers divided the needs into five groupings: cognitive needs, affective needs, personal integrative needs, social integrative needs, and tension release needs. Similarly, Shao (2009) explained “Congruously, McQuail (1983) summarized four common reasons for media use: information; personal identity; integration and social interaction; and entertainment” (p. 9).
Rubin and Rubin (1985) argued that the application of the uses and gratifications theory should be broadened to be a communications paradigm, rather than a mass communication research tool. The researchers argued for five underlying assumptions of the uses and gratifications theory as part of the new communications paradigm. Clavio (2008) outlined the five assumptions made by Rubin and Rubin (1985):
First, the assumption that media use is goal-directed is also present in the usage of interpersonal communication channels. Second, media is utilized to satisfy personal needs, and those needs can vary in both type and scope from user to user. Third, the user is able to self-identify his/her needs, and makes choices about communication utilization based on those needs. Fourth, a user is capable of providing an accounting of his/her own personal motives and gratifications for communication usage. Finally, every user is affected by a variety of influences, both internal and external, which can have an impact on communication selection and usage. (p. 35)
Criticisms of the Uses and Gratifications Approach
The main criticisms of the uses and gratifications general approach is that it is too behaviorist and functionalist (McQuail, 2010). In addition the theory largely fails to provide successful prediction because of the difficulty in measuring motives, and the notion that media use may actually have weak motivations. McQuail (2010) explained “Typologies of ‘motives’ often fail to match patterns of actual selection or use, and it is hard to find a logical, consistent and sequential relation between the three factors of linking/preference, actual choosing and subsequent evaluation” (p. 426). The changing and diversification of the media environment has also made it more difficult for researchers to find a “single explanatory framework of audience patterns” (p. 426).
Ruggiero (2009) outlined several additional flaws of the uses and gratifications theory, including that the theory is often too individualistic by focusing on audience consumption. The researcher stated “it makes it difficult to explain or predict beyond the people studied or to consider societal implications of media use” (p. 12). Furthermore, Ruggiero argued the cornerstone of the uses and gratifications theory, the notion of an active audience and self-reported data – the validity of which are assumed by researchers, may be too simplistic to represent an audience’s media habits.
Conversely, Sundar and Limperos (2013) argued, “thanks to the Internet, the concept of ‘active audience’ has now reached a pinnacle” (p. 504). The researchers concluded that the uses and gratifications assumption of an active audience has moved from assumption to reality. This transition is explained through the current trend of referring to Internet audiences as “users,” rather than just as an audience, because they are so involved and active.
The current study will continue with a review of relevant studies on the uses and gratifications of sports fans, specifically online because most team media and fan sites operate primarily on the Internet.
Sports Fans’ Uses and Gratifications
Before delving into research on sports fans’ motivations and consumption habits, it is prudent to review definitions on what constitutes a fan. Gantz and Wenner (1995) separated sports consumers into two categories: fans and nonfans. Nonfans viewed sports without an invested interest, such as a way to spend time with a spouse. Fans were defined as “those who think they are knowledgeable about sports, express interest in viewing televised sports, and devote viewing time to such programming” (p. 59). In a more recent study by Hull and Lewis (2014), the researchers proposed an additional category of sports consumers: the connected fan. The connected fan doesn’t solely rely on traditional media outlets, and are defined as “those who use the Internet at least once daily to follow their favorite players and teams” (p. 18).
In order to further understand sports fans’ consumption habits in the digital age Hur, Ko, and Valacich’s (2007) created the Scale of Motivation for Online Sport Consumption (SMOS). The scale outlined sports fans’ motivations and concerns for using the Internet for sports information and shopping. The researchers identified five major motivations including: convenience, diversion, economic motives, information, and socialization. Convenience outlines the ease in which sports consumers are able to seek information when using the Internet (Hardin, Koo, Ruihley, Dittmore, McGreevey, 2012). Diversion explains how sports consumers escape from daily work life and worries while using the Internet to seek out pleasure, fun, or enjoyment (Hur et al., 2007). The third motivational factor, economic motives, “refers to sport consumers’ desire to save or make money, bargain efficiently, and obtain free products via the Internet” (p. 526).
The fourth motivational factor is information, which is of primary interest to the current study and outlines sports fans’ “need to gain up-to-date information regarding sports teams, players, products, and current trends of sport business” (p. 525). This type of knowledge includes information on players, sporting events, coaches, or recruits gathered through fan sites, team media, and/or independent media (Hardin et al., 2012). Finally, socialization refers to “consumers’ desire to develop and maintain human relationships through the Internet by sharing experience and knowledge with others who have similar interests” (p. 525). The socialization motivational factor is a major component in fan sites’ appeal to consumers, as most offer advanced forums for fans to participate in live chats and discussions with other fans (Butler & Sagas, 2007).
In 2008 researchers Seo and Green developed the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption in order to create an instrument to measure the motivations for fans using professional sports teams’ websites. The resulting scale consisted of 10 dimensions of motivation: “fanship, interpersonal communication, technical knowledge, fan expression, entertainment, economic, pass time, information, escape, and support” (p. 82). First, fanship is defined as the “reason that one considers oneself a huge fan of particular sports and teams,” while interpersonal communication is defined as a “motive to share experience and knowledge with other fans in terms of sports” (p. 86).
Technical knowledge refers to the motivation for fans to learn specific sports terms, rules and skills. Fan expression, or team support, is the desire for fans to show support for their team through the use of the team’s website. The researchers defined entertainment as a fan’s motive to enjoy sports and have fun, while the economic motive is defined as a “motive to get promotional incentives that a team provides” (p. 86). Pass time is often used to describe a fan’s motivations, and Seo and Green classified it as spending free time using the sports team’s website. Information overlaps with a category of Hur et al. (2007), and describes a fan’s motivation to seek sports content about recent news in the sports world. Finally, Seo and Green (2008) categorized escape as a fan’s “motive to feel less anxious and to get relaxation through navigation of teams’ Web sites” (p. 86).
A subsequent analysis of the 10 dimensions “revealed that interpersonal communication was the most salient motive for consumption of sport online, followed by fan expression and technical knowledge” (Clavio, 2008, p. 64). The findings help explain the popularity of fan sites, as interpersonal communication and fan expression may both be best represented through the message board and chat features on fan sites. Based on Seo and Green’s (2008) definitions of interpersonal communication and fan expression, it is easy to understand why consumers flock to fans sites because, unlike traditional media and team media, they were built with fan interaction as the backbone (Hardin et al., 2012). However, information was still an important motive for fans and Seo and Green (2008) concluded, “Much of the appeal of sport Web sites comes from the passion of sport fans who need their daily fix of information” (p. 83).
Before the rise of the Internet, Wann (1995) identified eight factors as the primary motivations for sports fans to consume sports, the base for the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. The researcher surveyed 272 university students, and assessed eight dimensions of sports fans’ motivations including: eustress, self-esteem, escape, entertainment, economic, aesthetic, group affiliation, and family reasons. The research piece also included a second study in which Wann analyzed the reliability of the fan motivation scales and repeated the first study on a different population. Both studies revealed the highest level of motivation was on the entertainment subscale, and Wann found his sport fan motivation scale to be internally consistent, reliable, and valid. Interestingly Wann’s scale left out information, which is included in most studies on sports fans’ motivations. Even though it was conducted in 1995, Wann’s study still proves useful to sports researchers with the economic, entertainment, and escape dimensions overlapping with the SMOS (Hur et al., 2007) and the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption (Seo & Green, 2008).
As previously discussed, this study will analyze the motivations of fans when choosing what source of sports news to access. In addition, because teams and leagues have continued to restrict media members’ access it is now beneficial to conduct a brief review of relevant scholarly literature on gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping Theory
In news media the gatekeeping process can be traced to a study by White (1950), which examined how wire service editors sifted through and chose news pieces (Wigley & Meirick, 2008). White’s study was the first to analyze the journalists role in deciding what others should know, and found the editor in the study had specific criteria to use in the selection process. In more recent studies scholars debate whether or not the traditional idea of a gatekeeper still exists. With the rise of the Internet and Internet users representing sources of information, Clavio (2008) argued that the traditional media gatekeeper role has been significantly reduced. Singer (2006b) agreed that the traditional idea of a journalist as a gatekeeper is quaint, “The journalist no longer has much if any control over what citizens will see, read or hear, nor what items they will decide are important to think about” (p. 12). Singer (2006a) points out the main reason for that change is the Internet, “The Internet defies the whole notion of a ‘gate’ and challenges the idea that journalists…should limit what passes through it” (p. 265).
The changing role of sports journalists as gatekeepers is particularly evident with the rise of fan sites, team media, and social media (Clavio, 2008). One could argue that with the rise of the Internet sports teams have become the new gatekeepers, using access as a way to control, sway, or limit messages that get out to the public. As Pegoraro (2010) pointed out, in Web 1.0 fans could only access their favorite athletes through team-mandated events, such as a promotional meet-and-greet, but now the new media landscape and social media provide fans an unprecedented inside look into the lives of their favorite teams and players. An interesting example of athletes by-passing traditional media outlets is the formation of The Players’ Tribune, which launched in 2014 founded by former professional baseball player Derek Jeter. The Players’ Tribune’s “About” section describes the site as:
A new media platform that presents the voices of athletes, bringing fans closer to the games they love than ever before…It aims to provide unique insight into the daily sports conversation and publishes first-person stories directly from athletes. From video to podcasts to player polls and written pieces, The Tribune strives to be “The Voice of the Game”. (The Players’ Tribune, n.d.)
Not only are athletes sidestepping traditional media and team mandates, but other independent news outlets are as well. The popular sports news website Deadspin is a great example of how, even when teams control access they can’t always control the message in this new media world (Rice, 2009). Deadspin brands its coverage as “Sports News without Access, Favor, or Discretion” and covers sports stories from an arm’s length, with very little access granted by teams due to the often critical and harsh stories. The website is an example of a way to avoid the access control issues that traditional media face, while still informing the public and acting as watchdog journalists.
The popularity of fan sites, team media, and websites such as The Players’ Tribune does not, however, negate the importance of traditional independent sports news. In a study on professional baseball player Curt Schilling and Boston Red Sox fans, Poor (2006) demonstrated traditional sports media is still useful. Sports journalists as gatekeepers can perform essential functions that fans are searching for such as verification of sources. In addition, especially in the college sports realm, the traditional media may be more effective at reaching a large audience. Specifically, Poor concluded that Schilling and the fans under study found the most important function of gatekeepers was to provide identity verification, but Schilling often sought to avoid the access control of media outlets. Furthermore, Poor concluded Schilling’s thoughts on the Internet, “a forum that allows him to put his words out there with his own context, not subject to the interpretation or reframing of a gatekeeper” (p. 51). In conclusion, researchers found it is still up for debate on whether or not gatekeepers still exist in sports media, but the notion has certainly evolved with the evolution of team media and fan sites (Poor, 2006; Clavio, 2008).
Research Questions
Through this proposed study the researcher will seek to measure what sports fans think of the changing sports media landscape, and specifically what primary motivations University of Florida Gator fans have when searching for sports news online. Fans have a plethora of options for sports news at the tip of their fingers, be it from team media, fan sites, or traditional media outlets. According to Shao (2009) the uses and gratifications theory is “one of the most appropriate perspectives for investigating why audiences choose to deal with different media channels” (p. 4). Based on the interpretations of the uses and gratifications theory, the current study will use an adaptation of the SMOS (Hur et al., 2007), and the Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption (Seo & Green, 2008) to answer the following research question:
RQ1: What are the primary motivations that Florida Gator fans are seeking from online sports news?
Once the leading motivations are identified in RQ1, through an online survey of Florida Gator fans, the current study will take the analysis a step further to answer the following research question:
RQ2: To what extent do fans place importance on objective reporting from sports media, especially when it comes to sensitive topics (arrests, injuries, personnel changes)?
In an effort to further analyze the importance fans place on the source of their sports news, based on recent gatekeeping research in sports media and the current trends of teams controlling access, the researcher will seek to answer the final research question:
RQ3: To what extent do fans place importance on the source of the sports news they consume?
The research paper turns now to a brief review of the proposed methodology.
Methodology
For the proposed study, the primary methodology will be an Internet-based quantitative survey of Florida Gator fans. For the purpose of this study, a Florida Gator fan is defined as a person who is or was a season ticket holder for any sport during the 2012-13 and/or the 2013-14 seasons. The Florida season ticket holders have been chosen as the population of study because of their vested interest in the Gators. Furthermore they were chosen based on the likelihood that they are familiar with a multitude of publications and media outlets that cover Gator sports, including team media (Gatorzone.com), fan sites (such as OnlyGators.com), and traditional news outlets (such as the Gainesville Sun). The researcher will identify the season ticket holders through an email request to the University of Florida Athletic Association (UFAA). As a former intern at the UFAA the researcher has several contacts in the ticket office, which makes the retrieval of a season ticket holder contact list an attainable venture.
A quantitative survey has been chosen as the methodology based on the recommendations set forth by Christiansen, McNamara, Hall, Bandas, and Bell (n.d.), who found that surveys are the best option when a researcher wants to draw conclusions on the perceptions of key publics in a timely manner. Similar to the goals of this study, a survey’s goal is to “obtain data from a large population, from which results can be generalized to that larger population” (Stacks, 2011, p. 223). In this case the goal of the research will be to generalize the motivations of Gator fans, by examining the Gator season ticket holders’ uses and gratifications of sports media.
For this study, an Internet survey will be employed primarily because of the speed in which responses can be returned and analyzed. In order to increase response rates, an email will be sent one week prior to the actual survey link to the Florida Gator fan population, this initial email will describe the goals of the proposed research study and the parameters of the survey. Furthermore, an email will be sent once a week up to six weeks until a response has been received. The proposed study will employ a probability sampling because everyone in the population, in this case the season ticket holders in the past two seasons, will have the chance to be randomly selected.
In order to answer the first research question, the fans’ motivations will be measured using a blend of the SMOS developed by Hur et al. (2007) and Seo and Green’s (2008) Motivation Scale for Sport Online Consumption based on the recommendations of Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh, and Greenwell (2011). The Gator fans will be asked questions adapted from the survey used by Hur et al. (2007) and Seo and Green (2008) in order to measure the following motivations: information; escape, diversion, pass time; socialization, interpersonal communication, fanship, fan expression; economic; convenience, technological knowledge, fan expression, support. Survey participants will be asked to rate their motivations on a 5-point Likert scale. A sample question to measure the information motivation would be ‘I use the team’s website because I can learn about things happening with the team’. The final two research questions will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale based on the recommendations of Dawes (2008). The Likert scale will allow the Florida fans to rate their attitudes and perceptions on the source of their sports news, and the level of importance they place on the objectivity of their sports news among other uses and gratifications.
The emergence and subsequent popularity of team media and fan sites are still a relatively new phenomenon in the sports world, and as such have not been the subject of much scholarly research. This proposed study was designed to fill that void in academic research, but most importantly to analyze how sports fans view this phenomenon.
References
Aschburner, S. (2007). Access in sports reporting — where less really is less. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from https://www.minnpost.com/sports/2007/11/access-sports-reporting-where-less-really-less
Butler, B. & Sagas, M. (2007). Making room in the lineup: Newspaper web sites face growing competition for sports fans’ attention. International Journal of Sport Communication 1(1), 17-25.
Christiansen, D., McNamara, T., Hall, D., Bandas, M., & Bell, R. (n.d.). Vanderbilt University assessment website. Retrieved September 8, 2015, from http://virg.vanderbilt.edu/AssessmentPlans/Home.aspx
Clavio, G. (2008). Uses and gratifications of Internet collegiate sport message board users (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest database (AAT 3319833).
Curtis, B. (2015). Distant Thunder: What did Oklahoma City’s media do to piss off Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant?. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-russell-westbrook-kevin-durant-oklahoma-city-thunder-sports-media/
Dawes, J. G. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51(1).
DeSanto, B. (2013). Uses and gratifications theory. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations. (pp. 951-954). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276236.n514
Farhi, P. (2011). In Internet age, sports teams are increasingly in the news business. Retrieved September 9, 2015, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in-internet-age-sports-teams-are-increasingly-in-the-news-business/2011/02/28/ABPkAtV_story.html
Gantz, W., & Wenner, L.A. (1995). Fanship and the television sports viewing experience. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(1), 56–74.
Hambrick, M. E., Simmons, J. M., Greenhalgh, G. P., & Greenwell, T. C. (2011). Understanding professional athletes’ use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 454-471.
Hardin, R., Koo, G. Y., Ruihley, B., Dittmore, S. W., & McGreevey, M. (2012). Motivation for consumption of collegiate athletics subscription web sites. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(3), 368-383.
Hull, K., & Lewis, N. P. (2014). Why Twitter displaces broadcast sports media: A model. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(1), 16-33.
Hur, Y., Ko, Y.-J., & Valacich, J. (2007). Motivation and concerns for online sport consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 521-539.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747854
Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164-181.
Legwold, J. (2015). Lynch: ‘I’m here so I won’t get fined’. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12237417/marshawn-lynch-seattle-seahawks-uses-same-answer-repetition-super-bowl-media-day-here-get-fined
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Moore, J. (2015). Why sports reporters are (really) mad at Marshawn Lynch. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-sports-reporters-are-really-mad-at-marshawn-lynch
Pegoraro, A. (2010). Look who’s talking—athletes on Twitter: A case study. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 501-514.
Poor, N. (2006). Playing Internet curveball with traditional media gatekeepers. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 12(1), 41-53.
Rawlinson, K. (2015). Fans suffer as football clubs show journalists the red card. Retrieved August 26, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/26/football-clubs-ban-journalists-newcastle-united
Rice, J. (2009). When the league owns the network – and pays the journalists: A new set of ethical questions arise. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/07/when-the-league-owns-the-network-and-pays-the-journalists-a-new-set-of-ethical-questions-arise/
Romenesko, J. (2013). The State tells its sports columnist he can’t cover University of South Carolina football. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://jimromenesko.com/2013/09/11/the-state-tells-its-sports-columnist-he-cant-cover-university-of-south-carolina-football/
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(1), 36-53.
Ruggiero, T. (2009) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3-37, DOI: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
Ruihley, B. J., & Hardin, R. L. (2011). Message boards and the fantasy sport experience. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4(2), 233-252.
Seo, W. J., & Green, B. C. (2008). Development of the motivation scale for sport online consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 22(1), 82-109.
Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user‐generated media: A uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7–25.
Singer, J. B. (2006a). Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the co-production of content in campaign 2004. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 265-280.
Singer, J. B. (2006b). The socially responsible existentialist: A normative emphasis for journalists in a new media environment. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 2-18.
Stacks, D. W. (2011). Primer of public relations research (Second ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Sundar, S., & Limperos, A. (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-525, DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
The Players’ Tribune. (n.d.). About The Players’ Tribune. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from http://www.theplayerstribune.com/about/
Wang, Y. (2014). How do sports organizations use social media to build relationships? A content analysis of NBA clubs’ twitter use (Order No. 1561382). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1562269492). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1562269492?accountid=10920
Wann, D. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19(4), 377-296.
Ward, B. (2014). Journalists are losing access, but the public still expects the story. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/266669/journalists-are-losing-access-but-the-public-still-expects-the-story/
Wigley, S. & Meirick, P. (2008). Interactive media and sports journalists: The impact of interactive media on sports journalists. Journal of Sports Media, 3(1), 1-25.