If you still even subscribe to your local newspaper, you’ve probably noticed that it’s getting thinner and thinner. What once would have passed for a phone book is now, at best, a placemat. Even if you consume your news online, news organizations are having a harder time keeping reporters on staff as they struggle to cover overhead and stay afloat.
So it’s perhaps not a surprise that some organizations are taking matters into their own hands, as the Los Angeles Kings hockey team did earlier this week. According to the New York Times, the team has hired a reporter to write (autonomously) for its Web site. I encourage you to read the full article and noodle on it for a bit.
Is it any different than providing your own corporate content?
I’ve struggled internally with whether this approach is good, bad or even sustainable. Obviously the Kings recognized that its fan base is hungry for news but that traditional outlets no longer have the means to provide it. So the Kings have decided to create news for themselves.
Initially, this may not appear any different than having an internal communications person develop and produce news stories for an organization. It reminds me a bit of what Lee Aase has been doing at Mayo Clinic: Don’t just pitch the media, BE the media.
However, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. Rich Hammond is not employed by the Kings to tout the company line and craft messages that are complimentary to the organization. He supposedly has complete editorial control over the content. Essentially he’s a “sponsored reporter.”
But I question how successful this approach can be. If Hammond’s stories are too complimentary or give the Kings a pass too frequently, will readers write him off as “working for the man” and simply regurgitating the party line?
Could you square off against the organization that’s your livelihood?
Is he really going to feel comfortable taking a hard tack against the organization that provides his paycheck each week? What happens if Hammond uncovers evidence of cheating, doping or other foul play within the organization? Will readers trust that he’s reporting the full story and not covering up details at the behest of the organization that pays him?
The New York Times piece suggests that readers are smart enough to distinguish between reporting and public relations. I don’t doubt that’s true, but I do wonder if it will mean that Hammond’s “reporting” is slightly less forceful than it would have been at an indpendent news organization. Hammond himself claims he’ll continue to write just as he would if he were a reporter.
It’s one thing for a company to internally produce content (blog posts, news releases, video, podcasts, etc.). Readers know that this content specifically comes from within the organization and can judge for themselves how much “messaging” is included in this content.
But in the case of the LA Kings, that line becomes blurred. Hammond isn’t strictly a corporate communications professional working with the best intrests of the organization in mind, but he’s also not strictly a reporter who doesn’t rely on the organization he covers to pay his bills and feed his family.
What do you think about this hybrid model? Will readers trust it – or even be able to distinguish reporting from PR? Could it work for certain types of organizations but not others?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments – I’m still working this one out…
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Well written post and thanks so much for sharing this story and topic…I hadn’t read about this yet although I’m not surprised whatsoever. In fact, I’ve often discussed this very issue with many here in Chicago. As you probably know, the Chicago Tribune has owned the Chicago Cubs for the past several years until it was recently sold this past month. The Tribune’s coverage of the Cubs has often been criticized although my personal take is that it has always been rather unbias. I know this isn’t exactly the same thing you are discussing here in this post…but yet a very relevant analogy to this subject. Personally, I think this may be the model for the future – especially in sports where most fans are just looking for the game summaries and stats. With businesses and government I’m not sure this model would fly:)
Great food for thought here…thanks Amy!
Matt (@storyassistant)
I had forgotten about the Tribune/Cubs and yes, that’s certainly an interesting analogy. I think this model could work in sports to a degree, but when a big scandal hits, that’s when I fear it would break down.
You’re right in that a lot of sports fans want scores, summaries and a general report of what’s happening within a team. A fair amount of that type of reporting can be done without having to work to hard to avoid the reporter/internal PR line. But a good many sports teams/leagues/players have been faced with scandal of some sort or another recently and I’m not sure this type of arrangement would hold up in those situations.
Thanks for stopping by, Matt!
Amy thanks for such a thought-provoking post. In my business I work as both a journalist and PR consultant (although never at the same time) so I can see how easy it is to blur the lines between the two. This situation sounds like it will err on the side of PR, however only time will tell how successful it will be.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Johanna @JohannaBD
I think it won’t be long, maybe already, the definable job of “journalism” is will be no more.
The massification of the means of publication and distribution has decimated the old models of information distribution. As long as we know who is writing and who is paying them, then I’m OK with internal “reporters”.
In regards to sports, the recent banning of Twitter is a really good example of one end of the spectrum. Witness how Lance Armstrong became a supported “One-man Media Machine” during the last Tour. These days, if you know who to follow, news can be gained very quickly. What I really appreciate is thoughtful analysis of events. There’s a big difference between that and simply reporting the facts.
Good distinction between “journalism” and “reporting.” Sponsored reporting may be able to work since it’s essentially just sharing basic information and facts, but I’m more skeptical of sponsored journalism – really digging deep into an issue or organization and covering it unabashedly.
Your Twitter example is great – Lance was indeed a media machine during the Tour and used Twitter to “report” news from the TdF (including quotes and reactions) long before mainstream outlets. But I recognized that I wasn’t necessarily getting the full story from Lance and still turned to those other outlets for the analysis.
Amy, I am with you – not sure where to stand on this. On one side, I see the benefit and how this can help the Kings. On the other hand, if it’s completely anonymous (though is it now that he’s been identified), how unbiased will it be. I’m assuming (I know I shouldn’t) that most readers will know he’s employed by the Kings and will take that into consideration. However, if there isn’t going to be an ounce of honest and real criticism, why not simply have an internal guy post content?
The bigger question is whether or not this is considered journalism? Isn’t journalism at its core suppose to be unbiased? In this case, I’ll wait to cast judgment until this guy posts some content. But I don’t necessarily this is true journalism.
Hammond claims he’ll continue to be an unbiased journalist, but I’m not sure I buy it yet. I guess time will tell. Essentially he does become an internal employee posting content, although he’s doing it without consultation from the organization and with, supposedly, full editorial control. And so far it doesn’t appear that the Kings are trying to hide the fact that he’s working for them – the organization and Hammond himself have been very open about the arrangement.
I think TourPro raised a good question in his comment and you echo it here – what’s journalism? What’s reporting? What do readers expect and will they be able to tell (or care) that there’s a difference?
Hey Amy -
Great post. I saw this story a few days ago and it didn’t really pass the ‘sniff test’ for me. It all sounds great, but there’s still something fishy about it.
I’ll be interested to see how it all pans out.
I think a larger structure would actually help here (i.e. if there were more sponsored reporters and an Ombudsman type person specifically to monitor them, their research, etc.) rather than a single ‘rogue’ sponsored reporter.
Interesting, Cog. Maybe a consortium of sorts where organizations pay into a central pot that funds these reporters and there’s some sort of quality control to make sure that fair/critical/honest reporting is happening? I agree that just one reporter on this type of set-up is probably not as effective as a larger structure.
The short answer? I think it has to. Otherwise how will journalism continue to exist in its current form?
I do think that some level of legalese needs to go into deciding how this plays out though. Can’t have conflicting interests…
Good conversation starter Amy. I just had this discussion with my students the other night. My take on it is the sports teams that own reporters will say they have complete autonomy, until there’s a losing season or a nasty internal contract dispute — then we’ll see the hammer coming down.
It is an interesting concept to be sure — but I’m not sure we can truly have a free press that is owned by the people they are supposed to be reporting on.
What did your students think? I wonder if they’re more used to sponsored content (in a variety of forms) and thus have less of an issue with this model.
Honestly, they didn’t have much of an opinion. But I find that to be a frequent problem with college students today. They don’t care or don’t care to care. Every semester, I have a large percentage of students who report that they do not have a daily source for news, and these are journalism and PR students! Imagine how high that percentage is with the general college population.
I also see a problem with the next generation of news consumers being interested in no more than a headline or lead paragraph to get the story. They don’t seem to care to get the whole story or read something longer than a few paragraphs in order to understand the background on an issue.
Somebody gave me a cartoon the other day that showed a person wearing a t-shirt that read, “Largely uninformed and I vote.” That’s where America’s headed and having sponsored reporting is only going to make that worse. We’ll turn from a 24-hour news cycle to a 24-hour PR Spin cycle. We’re already headed there, just a few more steps and we will have reached our destination.
Your observation about your students is interesting. I’ve heard mixed arguments about the readership’s role in this discussion we’re having about news content and who pays for it. Some people seem to think that readers are “smart enough” on their own to figure out for themselves whether content is biased or not. Some have argued that in the case of sports reporting, people don’t really care and just want the facts and data about the team.
But you seem to indicate that your students aren’t even bothering to make the distinction anymore – that content is content, no matter who the source or the funding for that source. Maybe that’s a post for another day…
There is a larger piece that nobody is talking about; and that is LAKings.com is only part of the portfolio. What about http://twitter.com/LAkingshockey or http://www.facebook.com/officiallakings or http://www.myspace.com/OfficialLosAngelesKings?
Will Rich have full control over those and future media outposts, too? Or will he merely be the web content writer?
Because, if the answer is he will only focus on the website, he’s doing the Kings organization and its fans a disservice. If not integrated in its marketing, then what’s the point?
Ari, I think the point is specifically NOT for Rich to have control over the LA Kings social media properties, because then he becomes a mouthpiece of the organization. I believe their goal here is to have him continue as an objective reporter and not necessarily speak on behalf of the organization – he’s not an internal PR person creating content for them, he’s covering them.
If he were to start posting to their Facebook, MySpace or Twitter accounts, then I think the already tenuous line between objective reporting and PR that the Kings and Hammond are trying to walk with this model would soundly be crossed.
I don’t buy that argument. If he’s writing on the organization’s website, he can’t be objective.
Thus the reason for this post and discussion… I’m not sure if anyone is really buying it.
He can’t be objective, or we don’t believe he can be objective.
I have watched this unfold for Matt Cerrone who writes Metsblog.com as over the last couple of years SNY a television stationed owned by the Mets in part, thought it wise to partner with Cerrone. Immediately many fans cried that his objectivity would be lost, many believe still his point of view is compromised.
Cerrone’s issue is slightly different because there are some walls between him and the team, but not many. Frankly the only reason they do not tie his blog into Mets.com is because Major League Baseball completely oversees its individual teams web operations, setting the standards and guidelines for what can happen and pushing out their own MLB reporters.
Taking things only a slight step further, what would make someone writing for the New York Times or Wall Street Journal any more objective when publishing stories in their respective papers or online. Presumably it is the veil of implied distance in working for a news organization vs. a corporation. But it is not impossible to argue that the work of reporter can be compromised by the editor and the owners agenda or at least viewpoint.
It is easy to see the black and white areas, when perhaps Hammond pens a piece about the great effort in a 5-0 loss, and certainly more difficult to chew on the grey areas.
Like the topic and to be honest, I’m sure the Kings aren’t all that worried about Hammond being “objective.” Bottom line, they want to drum up interest in their team, and they want their fans to have a place to go to get information and news about the team, because they aren’t getting that from the local newspaper. It doesn’t matter if it’s biased or not really, as long as it has a “journalistic feel” then the goal will be achieved. They can’t get coverage, so they had to create coverage. They’re also being open and honest about it. I think that looking at the market is also important here. For example, I don’t know that this would fly in a town like New York, Chicago, or Boston. Teams there don’t have to worry about coverage, and in fact oftentimes have to bottle up or quell stories. But for teams with less and less media outlets, I think this will become the model for getting information to the fans. I can see teams in markets like Nashville and even Jacksonville adopting this. Markets where there is a fan base, but not adequate media space.
As for passing the smell test, as my friend Cog alluded to, I think that fans nowadays check a lot of places to get information about their teams, and are less concerned about it being objective as much as it is accurate and timely. Readers nowadays understand that ALL of the news that they read has a bias of some kind, and they take it for what it’s worth. The messenger isn’t necessarily is as important as the information, especially in this case.
Jay – it seems like you think this model has a chance at working for sports teams; that fans are more concerned with the information than the messenger and in smaller markets, it may be the only viable way to create coverage for a team. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t the organization just produce their own content without trying to “disguise” (not even sure if that’s the right term) as objective reporting?
Do you think this could work in an industry other than sports, with different readers who maybe have different expectations on objective coverage?
Amy – it’s funny because I don’t think that the Kings are trying to “disguise” (I know what you mean) this as objective reporting, I just don’t think they would never want to come out and say, “this guy is going to write what we want, when we want it, and that’s that.” You asked why aren’t they producing their own content without the disclaimer. Well I think that they have to at least put this out there with some sense of objectivity, because that way it has a better chance to be effective. Obviously the reporter already has some credibility, and that helps. I think everyone understands there will be bias, but if they at least make a good faith attempt at being objective, that will be enough. Will this guy sniff out a story about the GM sexually harassing an intern? I have to believe there’s no chance. That’s when this issue might come to a head, but it’s already being raised in other venues, like the NFL.com and MLB.com for example. They all have contributors and writers, etc. Are they completely objective when it comes to reporting on league matters? Many would argue no. How does ESPN do when it comes to covering matters that concern them? I would argue that they’re really awful at it actually. A lot of times they hide behind being an “entertainment” channel, but then want to be taken seriously as a journalistic outlet. They love to have it both ways.
It’s funny because if you look at a publication like PatriotsWeekly (http://www.pfwonline.com) it’s owned by the team and produced by the team, in a BIG media market. But that doesn’t stop the publication from existing and selling. In fact, one could argue you get more in there than you do in the regular papers, because the team is notoriously tight lipped about news, etc. And one of the editors of this pub is a regular on the local sports radio station, one of the highest rated in the country. He’s open and honest about it, but I never hear people calling him out as being a schill for the team.
You ask a good question about whether or not this can work in other markets. I think that it can, and it will actually. I see companies and organizations getting tired of how the media covers them, and I think that many will take the step of getting their message directly to fans via other means. You’re seeing a lot of this already (the Google blog is a good example), it just hasn’t been in one forum and one format yet. Are you telling me that a weekly Google newsletter or newspaper wouldn’t get subscribers? Would people care that it was written by a “Google reporter?” I wonder.
But I think you’ll see more and more of this, sooner rather than later. (sorry for the long winded response, but I love this topic!)
Thanks for bringing up PatriotsWeekly to illustrate your argument – that’s a similar model (although on a larger scale) and obviously it seems to be working for them.
Your point about ESPN is interesting – gravitating toward “entertainment” versus “news” maybe gives them a little more leeway in some areas and allows them to punt on some of the tougher news stories (which I agree that they often do). But I think entertainment and news keep continuing to blur and I’m not necessarily sure that’s a good thing.
On the last point, where news and entertainment meshing not being a good thing, we are in complete agreement. But as news organizations scramble to make money, entertainment sells, and a lot of that is what journalism is becoming. Entertainment and gossip = $$$, unfortunately.
I tweeted this article because I didn’t know what to make of it – and got many responses that the sports world has done this for years. Shocker to me – it didn’t seem ethical at all. I think specific sports writers might be biased in general. As a fan, I’m always going to check out WI papers for GB news. The tone, way they approach is their passion for the team. So is that bias?
I question if it’s different for the sports world, and if so, why?
Good post A.
Great conversation you started here, Amy! I’ve noticed sports teams across the four main leagues creating a blogging position for on-staff communication professionals, as well as running Twitter and Facebook accounts, but hiring a team journalist is new, and depending on the content, can be ethically questionable. Reports on team acquistitions, injury news, after-game reports, team charity events etc. are the regular trends among these blogs.
The sports business is one of the most prideful businesses out there. Team owners and management staff, as well the fans for a team, take enourmous amounts of pride in their team’s accomplishments, and become furious in the midst of a downfall. I worry that this team journalist position will be used in a way to try and calm the storm if negative news and poor management becomes apparent within an organization, especially since this journalist is now on the team’s payroll.
The fans of a team have a right to know if something they love is being run into the ground and I fear that this position may soften the blow if such news occurs, trying to manipulate the response from the fans.
Definitely a position that raises a ton of questions.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
In regards to calming the storm if a negative news and poor management becomes apparent within an organization, what if that is an instance of calming a conjured up storm. Realistically speaking, sports is entertainment. Sports journalists are hitched to the cab of that entertainment. In order to have jobs they need eyeballs, which translates into advertising revenue which turns into paychecks. I am not trying to insinuate that every sports journalist [or any journalist for that matter] has an agenda based solely on the baseline result of getting paid, but compromise can be tricky.
Somehow when journalists covering major league baseball post the 1994 players strike (which cancelled the world series) were faced with a readership eroded by distate for the game, an entire field of journalists with unparalled access managed to completely miss the advance of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs escalating to epic proportions in the game. Baseball was making money, attendence was up, newspapers and magazines were moving as everyone fell in love with Mark and Sammy.
Thanks for looking at this from a slightly different angle. Controversy and scandal in sports are entertaining and draw readers and viewers, and thus advertisers who pay reporters’ paychecks. I certainly think that TV sports news has swung far in the direction of entertainment and ratings. Once you cross that line too far, it becomes much easier to prop up certain stories and ignore others. Your baseball example is telling.
I guess I don’t really understand why there has been all this discussion on this, coming from the point of view of a sports reporter turned news reporter turned PR guy.
This isn’t exactly a new concept. There are a number of pro teams — Cincinnati Bengals, Arizona Cardinals, Phoenix Coyotes just off of the top of my head — who have hired beat writers to cover the team for their websites. Many Division I colleges including N.C. State, Virginia, Colorado and others are doing the same thing. This is also what Major League Baseball has done with MLB.com. Those beat reporters are paid by MLB.com, but that isn’t all that different to me.
Is it journalism? For the most part, yes. Most sports journalism — especially beat writing — is a daily chronicling of events that happen. There is a rhythm to what happens. There are stories about sprained ankles and groin pulls and power play efficiency and the like. There is certainly less than positive stuff that happens when a player gets arrested or a player complains and wants to be traded or gets suspended, but none of that is really all that damaging.
When you look at huge breaking news stories in sports — BALCO, NCAA violations, etc. — very little of that in recent years has been done by beat writers. It has come from newspaper investigative reporters or one of the big national websites. There are certainly exceptions to that, but the huge beat writer scoop isn’t that common. Some of that is because a newspaper beat writer now has a lot more work to do in a day — there’s the blog and Twitter and breaking news for the web and notes and a game story — but a beat writer also walks a tight rope every day. A beat writer, especially on a pro beat, is around the players and coaches they cover more than they are around their own children. It’s pretty much a seven day a week job during the season.
While there is always going to be friction, there is also a desire on both sides to just get around. I truly think that most beat writers are at least fair and many are more than fair to the teams they cover. If they rip too much, then it becomes difficult to do your job. Obviously this doesn’t happen as much in hyper-competitive markets, but even in sorta-competitive markets, the coverage is more than fair. In one-paper markets, it is even more fair. Beat writers who stir too much up have strong stomachs. Now if a team is bad, they are going to be criticized, but there were times when I was a beat writer where I’d type a cute line and realize that maybe it was more trouble than it was worth.
Now onto the Kings. To me, this makes perfect sense. Because the only thing worse in sports than being ripped is being ignored. And the Kings are largely ignored. The LA Times no longer goes on the road with either NHL team in that market. That means that when the team is on the road, they take the AP gamer and bury it inside. That isn’t good when you’re trying to sell tickets, jersey and, frankly, the sport.
Now, Kings fans know that they have a place to get their news every day and they know it will be about their team. The writer will write some features, he’ll talk to players and the like. The writer won’t likely control the Twitter feed and the Facebook page and the like, but I’ll be stunned of the team doesn’t link to the beat writer’s work from those channels.
For the team, they will not get a pretty good bump in traffic to the site. They will give their customers the info they want. And they will be able to bombard their customers with advertising as they read the content.
In terms of criticism, I think the team has to allow much of it. Sports fans, especially avid fans, have a pretty good BS meter. If the reporter isn’t being real with the fans, they will quit showing up. If the goalie is awful, the goalie is awful. A coach I once covered used to use the line “The truth cannot be controversial,” and that is accurate.
I would think that there will be some things that the reporter might shy away from, but that might happen a handful of times in a season. And I think the team will be more than willing to be criticized at times if it means eyeballs on their website and the ability to build a community with the hardcore hockey fans.
I was going to give you my .02, but I gave you about .16.
Thanks,
Jeff Shelman
@jeffshelman
Wow, $.02? I’d say you easily gave us $20! Thanks for adding your insights. It’s especially appreciated coming from someone who has background and experience in sports journalism and PR.
If it’s pretty common for teams to hire beat writers to write for their sites as you say (which I’m sure it is), then why do you think Hammond is drawing attention? Why do you suppose that he took three paragraphs on his LA Daily News blog to defend and debunk criticisms about him going to work for the Kings, if it’s already somewhat of a standard practice in sports writing? Do you think his arrangement is somehow different?
I appreciate that you put into perspective the difference between daily beat writing and investigative journalism – you’re right in that many of the sports scandals or stories with mainstream appeal (beyond the daily chronicling of how a team is doing primarily for the benefit of its fans) have come from larger outlets. A beat reporter scoop is indeed rare. But I do wonder what happens to beat writers employed by an organization when a scandal breaks. If something big happens within the Kings and a mainstream newspaper picks up on it and starts to investigate, then what becomes Hammond’s role? What does he do when/if the Kings come to him and try to use him as the organization’s mouthpiece to tell “their side” of the story? Is that necessarily a bad thing? Obviously it’s not going to be a day-to-day issue, but again I question why the Kings and Hammond went through such strains to present this as an objective reporter relationship, rather than just saying that the Kings have hired Hammond to be their online community/content writer and manager.
Thanks so much for weighing in and keeping the conversation going.
Hi Amy…good thoughts in this post. I covered a similar topic in my blog sometime back, though it is very specific to India,
http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/2009/08/20/saif-is-searching-for-his-long-lost-girl-friend-does-anybody-care/
The point of that was on 2 fronts – one, an advertisement posing as a piece of editorial content, with no disclaimer. Two, India’s largest mainline daily, The Times of India (well, its parent group) has a program called Private Treaties, which helps them take a minority stake in a participating/ interested brand, in return of a lot of advertising. The latter, at least, seems to be a straight deal, though you never know where and how the amount of advertising promised may end up.
The former, as I had explained in my tweet, is a serious issue, akin to the one you’ve posted. This is a disturbing trend and perhaps we just need to depend on social (read participatory) media more, than organized, so-called mainstream media, if this is the trend.
Thanks Karthik. I read Fortune magazine and it’s often filled with these “advertorials” that you reference – but readers can almost always make a clear distinction between paid and editorial content as these sections usually say “advertisement” in small letters at the top (which is usually my cue to skip the entire section, so I’m not sure how effective this method is!).
Your second point about the media company exchanging advertising for brand equity is interesting – it doesn’t seem like they are trading advertising money for editorial coverage, which is generally regarded as a big no-no in journalism ethics. But that practice could possibly border on quid pro quo, depending on how those arrangements are structured. It definitely dovetails in with what we’ve been talking about here with Hammond and the Kings – how do you get balanced news coverage when the funding for that news comes from the organization that’s being written about.
Thanks for sharing.
Why do I think this is drawing attention? I think because it happened in LA and because it is unique in the sense that the Kings and Ducks are pretty much the only franchises in one of the “big four” pro sports in a mega-metro that don’t have full beat coverage. The main NYC papers have cut back on road coverage of the Islanders, but Newsday is still going strong. I think that is part of the reason why this is interesting. Also, I think there is some intrigue about a team that hires away someone who is currently covering them. The same happens when a biz reporter goes and works for a company they are currently covering. As an aside, the Ducks hired their beat writer from the Orange County Register recently and he’ll do some radio work for the team and write some for their site.
Why did he defend the move? I don’t know him and never met him, so I can’t say. My guess: He is in denial about becoming one of us. Everybody is loyal in some way to the people who write the check. I would guess that almost all of his work will mirror what he was doing at the Daily News. But I do think there are some things that he will likely dance carefully around.
Why say this is just journalism? I think the team wants to use this as a way to draw in readers by doing largely journalism. They are saying, in essence, that we care about our fans so much that we are going to make sure they get the coverage they want, even if it means they take some shots.
My opinion is that the reporter is going to have so much more access than he had before that he’s going to build better/stronger/more authentic relationships with people in the organization that it will be harder to kill them.
To me, this is kind of a hyper-local example of MLB Network, NFL Network, Big Ten Network, NBA TV, etc. All of those places do cover the bad news and tell those stories, but it is done with a little more care and sensitivity. The result: Teams/leagues get tons of exposure (and more of it) and fans get that unending appetite somewhat filled and it is done in a way that doesn’t just smack of being PR driven. Fans are awfully smart. They know when somebody is spinning and they don’t like it.
The other benefit for the team is that they have this guy for themselves. He’ll never have to chip in on some other team or get pulled off something for some other story. That means more coverage than ever before. And I’m going to guess that will include coverage of some off ice things that are largely positive.
Ok, that’s it for now. Not $20 worth, but a little something.