CJR: How sportswriting can recapture its relevance

[Wendy Parker]

Red Grange biographer Gary Andrew Poole thinks it's not to late to get it back:

http://www.cjr.org/essay/back_to_the_future_1.php?page=all

[micke77]

maybe i am a romanticist, but sportswriting still does have revelance i say this even as a jaded, long-time journalist who can grow quickly cynical at the things that have sometimes tarnished our craft. or how things are handled in the games people play.
i work at a small daily and, hokey as it might sound, readers still love grabbing that paper every day and reading about a "local boy or girl" who does good on the athletic front. i used to think this was mere mish-mash and untrue, but time and time again through the years I have been reminded of it when some parent, friend or acquaintance told me how much that meant to "little Joe seeing his name in the youth baseball report." I have written about such individuals and dismissed any thoughts that they might enjoy that particular story for something other than wrapping the fish.
at least at our level of the business, i definitely see us being revelant and significant in some people's every day lives. if only for a few minutes, they find enjoyment in a brief mention about someone they knew, then i feel like we've done our job. and may i add i have had the good fortune of having written about numerous athletes who went on to national prominence and, at some point during their professional careers, have let me know they still have that newspaper clipping back when they were in Little League or whatever youth sports.
maybe too often we do get caught up in the need to "get that scoop" or be controversial or whatever and overlook the mere human element in it and how the stories we write can have an impact on people's lives.

[Inky_Wretch]

Write longer narratives in the days of shrinking staffs and smaller news holes?

[Moderator1]

Great stuff and he's right.  I remember vividly the looks I got one day when discussing plans for a big event in our town.  I was thinking of, you know, the actual section that came out the next day?  What were my WEB plans, I was asked sternly.  WEB.  WEB.

Give me something to read.  PLEASE.

[In Exile]

What I would like to see is some failing paper, even with shrinking staffs and smaller news holes, to take a chance and instead of trying to get ahead of a curve they can't even see, turn the clock back.  Leave all the minutiae and vertical stuff the web does best for the web, and take back what papers do best - long gamers, multiple strong columnists, and takeouts.  Fire everybody and hire a bunch of talented kids and talented but frustrated experienced writers and just LET THEM RIP.  Put about 10% of it on their web site, just a taste, and keep the rest for print.  Because you have NOTHING TO LOSE.

It takes me about five minutes to read my local sports page on a Sunday, and even less during the week, because THERE IS NOTHING TO READ.  A pile of 75-150 word "stories," agate and a washed out syndicated column.  I used to look forward to reading the paper.  Now I just dread it, like looking at someone dying of cancer who keeps reaching for another pack of smokes.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Great stuff and he's right.  I remember vividly the looks I got one day when discussing plans for a big event in our town.  I was thinking of, you know, the actual section that came out the next day?  What were my WEB plans, I was asked sternly.  WEB.  WEB.

You weren't worried about all those people with subscriptions to your Twitter coverage?? Shame, shame.

[Sneed]

What I would like to see is some failing paper, even with shrinking staffs and smaller news holes, to take a chance and instead of trying to get ahead of a curve they can't even see, turn the clock back.  Leave all the minutiae and vertical stuff the web does best for the web, and take back what papers do best - long gamers, multiple strong columnists, and takeouts.  Fire everybody and hire a bunch of talented kids and talented but frustrated experienced writers and just LET THEM RIP.  Put about 10% of it on their web site, just a taste, and keep the rest for print.  Because you have NOTHING TO LOSE.

It takes me about five minutes to read my local sports page on a Sunday, and even less during the week, because THERE IS NOTHING TO READ.  A pile of 75-150 word "stories," agate and a washed out syndicated column.  I used to look forward to reading the paper.  Now I just dread it, like looking at someone dying of cancer who keeps reaching for another pack of smokes.

I think this is a phenomenal idea. I worked at a weekly for a year, and my editor was gracious enough to allow me freedom to write about whatever I wanted, however I wanted....as long as everything fit in the two pages I was given to work with. It was all community stuff, so at the time it felt like small potatoes, but micke77's right -- I realized the importance of that work to the people who read it. I've been gone from that paper for a few months now and still, if I bump into someone who read it, get compliments or appreciation simply for doing a profile or feature or column on a kid.

[Joe Williams]

The general manager of the local MLB team once told me when I was devoting my time primarily to enterprise and substantive features: "You have the best job at that paper, even better than the columnists. Variety of material to work with and time to really develop and tell the stories." I agreed with him, and reader reaction to the stories almost always was strong.

Now no one has the best job at the paper, because that job doesn't exist and hasn't for more than a decade.

[Johnny Dangerously]

What I would like to see is some failing paper, even with shrinking staffs and smaller news holes, to take a chance and instead of trying to get ahead of a curve they can't even see, turn the clock back.  Leave all the minutiae and vertical stuff the web does best for the web, and take back what papers do best - long gamers, multiple strong columnists, and takeouts.  Fire everybody and hire a bunch of talented kids and talented but frustrated experienced writers and just LET THEM RIP.  Put about 10% of it on their web site, just a taste, and keep the rest for print.  Because you have NOTHING TO LOSE.

It takes me about five minutes to read my local sports page on a Sunday, and even less during the week, because THERE IS NOTHING TO READ.  A pile of 75-150 word "stories," agate and a washed out syndicated column.  I used to look forward to reading the paper.  Now I just dread it, like looking at someone dying of cancer who keeps reaching for another pack of smokes.

Every so often, these threads remind me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfL7STmWZ1c

The buggy whip part ... I keep thinking the answer lies somewhere between that part of the monologue and the proposal above. I'd like to think it's closer to the proposal above than to the buggy whip part of Devito's speech. And yes, I know it's not even close to a perfect analogy, but it keeps popping up in my mind.

[Fredrick]

The thing that makes me mad is the people pushing WEB every minute have no clue if that is the answer. Guess what ... advertisers say it isn't. The print product was a successful business venture. The print product has been ruined with layoffs/firings. SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY.

[CornFlakes]

THIS SENTENCE JUMPS OUT AT ME:

"The sports pages used to hold the honor as one of the best-written and best-reported sections in a newspaper. "

The problem now is that too many sports editors were never BEAT REPORTERS and can't relate to the obstacles and don't even understand BEAT REPORTING. They fly in on game day and write empty columns with no insights and expose themselves as assclowns with no pulse on what's going on with the team. Yet they are the decision-makers for the section and all they are worried about is worthless blog items because that's the trendy thing to do. They don't know good reporting when it slaps them in the face.

They don't give the writers the time needed to write outstanding features or do project reporting. All they care about is filling space and saying "yes sir" when the lame editor-in-chief calls them in for a meeting.

So to achieve what this article hints at, one thing is needed: More award-winning beat writers becoming sports editors, not the shallow-minded lemmings who advance to sports editor in this, the lamest era in the history of sports journalism.

Also, and I swear I don't know Wendy Parker and am not related to her, I loved her column on the Houston Comets in the latest addition of the Basketball Times even though I have zero interest in the WNBA. Well done, Wendy.

[buckweaver]

Speaking of corn flakes, sounds like somebody pissed in yours.

On a related note, I wonder if there's a way to find out the percentage of beat writers, deskers and non-sports personnel who made up the group of sports editors at, say, 100K papers and up at any given time since the turn of the 20th century. I'd definitely be interested in those stats -- I have no idea if CornFlakes' claim is true or not. (Where's the Baseball-Reference Play Index for sports journalism when you need it? )

[GlenQuagmire]

I do not see things ever going back in the other direction.

The article correctly states that poor management is largely to blame. Too few people with the right background are listening to what readers want and giving it to them while helping their writers focus on a main goal and maintain a profitable business.

Readers don't want less reporting and fewer stories for the same price - or even more. Yet that's what so many managers are saying readers want when that's so far from the truth.

What do we do best - report and tell stories through written words. Now we're being told to do so in less time and with fewer resources so we can blog, do videos, tv shows and podcasts and post fluff online updates 24 hours a day. The job duties have more than doubled yet expectations are that one person can and should always get the job done with no significant pay raise.

Many readers have given up. They see through the cost-cutting measures that result in a lower-quality product. The loyal readers will die off in the next few years and most others  will turn to tv, the Internet and message boards.

His idea is not completely wrong. There's just too little direction from those who are at the wheel of the ship. The next line of defense - middle managers - want to keep their jobs so they stay quiet. For some of us to try and turn it around without their help would be like a fishing boat trying to stop an aircraft carrier from leaving the harbor.

I am usually an optimist, but the obstacles appear to be too steep to overcome. I hope I am wrong.

[Moderator1]

I can't speak for every SE, but this one was a beat writer for about 30 years.  I understand full well what it takes.  Many of my colleagues did, too, though I couldn't tell you a percentage nationwide of the number of SEs who had worked a beat.

[In Exile]

What they don't understand is that the goal of a newspaper's web site should be to drive traffic to the paper, not the other way around.  The web site should only be judged a success if circulation goes up - and be judged a failure if page views go up but circulation drops.  And by that standard, newspaper have been miserable failures at the web.

[micke77]

we may sink in the sand pit, but our paper's publisher refuses to get totally wrapped up in the online business. his belief is that we are first and foremost a newspaper with emphasis on "paper"...he believes that too much emphasis on our Web site takes away from our daily paper. oh we have a Web site, but we don't put the content and effort into it like we do on the paper. again, maybe we are trying to grab some of the remaining oars as the "ship" sinks, but such is what it is.
the times when i do not agree with him is when there are major developments in our local area for sports (or news, too) and we lolly-gag in getting it out there quickly.

[WaylonJennings]

A couple of things:

1. Does it make me a bad person that I don't give a shit if some Little League mom tells me that she was so happy that I mentioned little Freddy Fastball in the sports section the other day, and how it made his day? Please try not to take this personally, because I guess there's a place for community journalism and I'm certainly not one to turn my nose up at the people who practice it, but one of the first lessons I had pounded into me was, "Don't write for your sources."

Yet I read this again and again and again on here. About how the $18K a year and nights and weekends were worth it when Suzie Softball's mom pulled you aside and said how much of a smile you put on her face when you wrote about Suzie's inside-the-park home run to beat Podunk Tech in the title game of the Class C Super Regional consolation bracket.

But I guess that just shows what a wide range of people we have on here, and how not every sports journalist is the same or approaches the job with the same objectives.

Again, maybe I'm just a helpless cynic.

2. I've floated the idea on here of charging for the Web. Just stop giving it away. And I think ultimately that's the answer.

But I imagine those of you who want to just close the Web shop permanently or speak of the medium with such disdain don't work at a paper that covers any national college or pro beats. It's easy to dismiss the Web when your audience is self-contained in your coverage area. It's a lot tougher to think that way when you're getting emails from Brazil and Europe (two locations in a recent batch I received). The Web has been a godsend, in some ways, to college town papers, who suddenly have relevance well beyond the 50,000 people who grab the dead tree version every day.

That being said, I think we've had such a woody about being mentioned on ESPN and rolling up Web hits like a pinball score that we lose sight of objective No. 1 - find a way to make money off of our newfound reach.

[Sneed]

Good points there, Waylon.

I can't really speak for the other guys who mentioned the love for pleasing the sources, but I know for me that was a big reward to hear things like that. Doesn't necessarily mean I, or others like me, write for them. I'm sure others who have said that have also thoroughly ticked off others in that community. I know I have.

But with your other ideas about the Web....I think it depends on which paper, whether or not charging for the Web site would work. But it's a good idea.

I also agree on your last sentence. But I think that may be a phase that passes. Today, the popular thing is to get your mug on ESPN or be a call-in guest reporter or something. Tomorrow it will be something else. And the day after that something else.

[WaylonJennings]

Good points there, Waylon.

I can't really speak for the other guys who mentioned the love for pleasing the sources, but I know for me that was a big reward to hear things like that. Doesn't necessarily mean I, or others like me, write for them. I'm sure others who have said that have also thoroughly ticked off others in that community. I know I have.

I learned pretty quickly that they like you when you write something nice about them and they dislike you when you write something they don't like or consider "negative." It has nothing to do with you.

Let me branch off into an analogy that may or may not make sense. I read Gerry Faust's autobiography a while ago. Now, we all know the guy was an abject failure as a college coach. But there was something in there he had absolutely correct. When people were glad handling him early on, he realized that it had nothing to do with him, and everything to do with his position - head football coach at Notre Dame.

When he began losing games, those same people, of course, hated him. Considered him the scum of the earth. But, again, he realized that it wasn't personal. And it meant nothing about Gerry Faust the person. That guy never changed.

Well, it's the same thing with the way our sources react to what we write. When Momma Volleyball tells me what a great job I did, she doesn't really think I did a great job. She is just happy I mentioned Vickie Volleyball in my story. If I had made a decision on deadline to focus on Valerie Volleyball and her 10 kills instead of Vickie's game-winnning serve, then Momma Volleyball would have hated me.

Again, I say all this while admitting that I may be a cynic and not as good and pure-hearted of a person who do get satisfaction out of filling kids' scrapbooks.

[micke77]

CornFlakes is sooooo right. some of today's employees in our profession wouldn't know a good story or angle if it hit them right in their face because they haven't been in the "trenches" enough to know good beat reporting, following a lead and "hunch", etc...they're too busy writing a cute blog or column that many readers could care less about. is it just me thinking that I believe too many of us have grown lazy at times in putting out a quality product jammed with great writing, thorough analysis, etc..? i am finding myself every day growing tired of this continuing trend of an emphasis on what "fans" are thinking, their opinions on games, events, developments, etc., etc. you can't have any type of subject in sports now without a Web site, newspaper or whoever offering a fans' forum or opinion. add all of those opinions up and too often they don't mean crap. everybody, it seems is an expert on everything sports and i believe we've helped create that perception because it's a quick and easy way of getting a story.

[SF_Express]

Many of my colleagues did, too, though I couldn't tell you a percentage nationwide of the number of SEs who had worked a beat.

Well, I did, but not for 30 years. Wrote columns, too. Always thought that helped when I went in the other direction.

[SF_Express]

On another subject, we had some writers in town last night and went to dinner and column styles came up.

I think this is relevant to this thread: My most basic theory is that a lot of sports writers back in the day had one of two "national" role models when it came to writing style (although not exactly trying to duplicate): Jim Murray and Red Smith. To make it more basic: "humor" or "serious". Although not mutually exclusive.

I was a Red Smith guy. Wonder if anybody else understands what the hell I'm talking about.

[micke77]

WaylonJennings....oh i agree in what you're saying totally about the read--Momma Volleyball or Daddy Football--saying that they liked what I wrote solely because it had to do with their son or daughter. it's just that, in this business, compliments are few and far between, so it's nice to hear some every now and then. i certainly don't rely on it or get heads over heels over it because i can be as cynical as the next guy who's been in this business a lonnnng time. oh how well i know how those same parents can turn on you like a copperhead. trust me, i know. best example i can recall right away is the time one youth momma cussed me out while i was on deadline because i had misspelled her name and then asked why I did it. i was in a raunchy ass mood that day and didn't give a crap what I said and my calm reply was: "M'am, I will tell you exactly why that happened. I got out of bed this morning and said to myself, 'Self, I am going to misspell so-and-so's name today'. And your's son name, M'am, popped up as the winner."
and believe this: she thought I was serious.

[Rumpleforeskin]

There's one problem about getting back to the true "beat reporting." Now that staffs are shrinking and we, as writers, are forced to do more, our responsibilities are shifted. I, myself, have a Division I beat, but along with that, I cover high school sports and layout the paper three times a week. Granted, I am a member of a two-person staff, yet, I am sure many of us have these same responsibilities. I try to put as much effort as I can into developing my beat and the relationships inside, but sometimes it's difficult with the added responsibilities.

Just my take.

[micke77]

Rumpleforeskin...i feel your pain. i can identify totally. i am also on a two-person staff and, not to be bragging, our paper with even such a shortage of folks does a heckuva job in covering everything from youth sports to locals who go on to the pros..but as you said, one can only do so much. i snap photos, write gamers, write features, write a column, write a blog and layout the pages--no kidding--each day. yes, layout along with all of those other things. and then to somehow find time to develop folks, interview people, etc., etc., etc..thankfully, i am single, so family obligations don't enter the equation. but hey, we all need some downtime and there are times such luxuries are few and far between. not complaining, just presenting what we do and have to face when one is on a small staff. still, i love it and bust my ass trying to do the very best i can.