1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ACC Tourney, a young writer, impressions of sports media

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by franticscribe, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    That was the weirdest part of the entry. He praised the guy for not asking a question, like that was a badge of honor. Perhaps the blog writer thought that that particular writer realized what a charade a press conference is? I couldn't quite tell. But I think it's pretty clear that he happened to like something about Coach K. that the writer penned earlier this year, so that colored his interpretation of him.

    He can definitely write. I don't think it's quite fair to say that he needs to go out and be a beat writer or cover preps and pay his dues. A line in John Ed Bradley's "It Never Rains In Tiger Stadium" has always stuck out for me. The New York Times sends him to cover a college football game, because he's trying to break into the business. Well, he finds out that he absolutely sucks at it. Can't do it. Can't bring himself to even try.

    He tells someone: "I'm just not that kind of writer."

    I think that's OK. Not everyone does, of course.

    Now, the problem is that nowadays nobody thinks they are that kind of writer, and everyone thinks that they are a gifted essayist.
     
  2. MrHavercamp

    MrHavercamp Member

    I guess the greater point was that he criticizes the people doing the jobs and the way they do them without having a clue about what it takes. I'm supposed to take that seriously?

    Mizzou, he called basically every person -- except one -- covering the tourney a flabby spare tire that needs to be excised.

    Time will tell if he can write. But first let's see him write about something where he actually has to report and tell a story instead of simply posting his pithy insights into how great Duke basketball is.
     
  3. dkphxf

    dkphxf Member

    This goes back to the question I asked many posts back and no one answered. How much of your sports section do you read for enjoyment? There's a lot of garbage being produced in dailies.
     
  4. MrHavercamp

    MrHavercamp Member

    Exactly what do you believe to be garbage? Please cite specific examples and explain what makes them so worthless.
     
  5. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    I saw that question. To me, it says a lot about the questioner. You haven't been in the business for very long, have you? Less than a year? A veteran would understand why, at many newspapers, your line of questioning doesn't speak to the point you think it's addressing.

    That's why nobody's answered it.

    But hey, because I'm waiting on a call-back (and a hell of a nice guy), I'll answer it for you.

    ZERO.

    Why? Because I read every word in our sports section before it's printed -- two, three, four, maybe five times or more. For much of my newspaper career, I read everything published in the entire paper -- and read the AP wire. By the time I got home, there was little I didn't know about locally, nationally or internationally that was covered by our reporters or by AP.

    By the time the paper arrives, there's no such thing as reading for enjoyment. Another glance to make sure everything looks the way you remembered it from the night before, and it's on to the next edition.

    Ask someone who's written a book if he or she reads it for enjoyment. Anyone who has written more than a few stories knows you reach a point of diminishing returns. Look at something long enough, and you can no longer see it fresh. That's why different sets of eyes are invaluable for copy editing. You can't step into the same river twice, and a lot of time has to pass before someone can read something for the fifth or sixth time and get "enjoyment" out of it. If you're doing your job right, doing what you ask is all but impossible.

    I suppose reporters who don't look at anything but what they write are exceptions, but more and more I think those exceptions are rare. Everybody's doing everything these days, including copy editing everyone else's stuff. If you work somewhere where you're able to read the next day's paper for enjoyment, you've got it pretty damn good -- or maybe you're not working hard enough to help with the product. Depends on your situation, I suppose.
     
  6. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I think newspapers all have resource issues, obviously, but I frankly don't think there's a lot more garbage being produced now than in the golden age, at least not generally. I used to read crap in papers in 1988, and I read crap in papers now. I also read a lot of great things, both then and now.

    Heck, you could even make a (perhaps weak) case that the overall quality level is higher, since without all that ridiculous space some papers have, there's less need to stretch to fill it up.

    I have no empirical evidence of this, just a thought. The flip side, of course, is that there are a lot of really good people on the sidelines, in some places replaced by less experienced (cheaper) talent.
     
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Sports sections would undoubtedly be more well-written if newspapers moved away from a "Feed the Beast" mentality on daily beats. But consumers would hate it. They want the best of both worlds, great stories produced every day. Choosing one or the other, however, I'd say a large percentage would choose the "every day" over the "great stories." Had this writer ever been on a beat or ever at all faced a deadline knowing he had to turn in something that wasn't his best work, he would know that and wouldn't be so quick to judge.
     
  8. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    As far as the "garbage" being produced now, if there is a marked difference, it's that access has been scaled back and paranoia has been ratcheted up.

    As for young Mr. The Shane, I think perhaps his biggest problem - other than tone - is that he is aiming his sights at the wrong targets.

    Like a lot of you, I'll be covering the NCAA Tournament. And I will be covering it as directed by my editors. That doesn't mean that I can't produce good work within that framework, but if I decide to go all Hunter S. Thompson on everyone's ass, it'll be the last paycheck I ever pick up from this publication. When it comes to beat coverage, there is a beast that needs to be fed. Some shops have experimented with the formula by reducing gamers, increasing analysis, and any number of tweaks, with mixed success. But those "waddling" writers don't have the autonomy to reinvent the genre at their own whims. The Shane's real issue shouldn't be with the "spare tires" covering the tourney. It should reach higher than that.
     
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    When the hell did you and I start thinking alike?
     
  11. geddymurphy

    geddymurphy Member

    Duke degrees don't help in this field. Trust me.
     
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I blame spnited. (Seriously, the testimonials that came in about his discussions that this here message board ain't real life.)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page