One of my good friends at home graduated in the summer from UCL in London having studied journalism and history. He is a very hard working guy and a good writer, and right now he's trying to make it as a freelance journalist in a very competitive world.
He's also doing alright for himself, he's recently been made sub editor at a fairly well know online football blogging site (don't want to give away any identity so I won't say which).
However, when he told me I noticed something very strange. He's been assigned to the site's section on Spanish football. He's never even been to a Spanish football match himself. His reports are good, I imagine they're accurate. However, they're full of generic terms such "They dominated the first half and played some very good football", "They started the quicker of the two teams", "They were unlucky not to lead by more at the break".....All taken from just a few paragraphs in one report.
It describes the goals and other key chances well enough, but you can tell that he didn't watch the match himself. Should football reporters attend matches more often? So often I read reports about our matches where I know the writer was not present, and it can annoy me when they miss things that people inside the stadium see.
Just to add an argument, I'm in HK and from places such as this, papers etc. I could tell you about our matches this season in decent detail. However, I can truthfully say it doesn't give you the same insight as attending the match itself and watching every incident over the 90 minutes.