ACC Tourney, a young writer, impressions of sports media

@Johnny Dangerously -- Obviously a copy editor or editor won't read the same stories again in a the dead tree version. But what about reporters? Prep reporters, do you read the college coverage you didn't produce? College guys, same for you on other beats. Pro guys, care about anything else? Do you even read a notebook on your team if it's written by someone else?

@MrHavercamp -- If you'd go back, you'd find what I was referring to. But because you're too lazy, I'll repost it. Let's say your local team makes the NCAA tournament. Do you need the following headlines -- "Coach pleased team makes tournament," "Players feel honored by selection," "Seniors enjoy going out in tournament," etc.? Really, would the coach not be please about making the tournament? Would the players feel disappointed about making the tournament? Would the seniors rather have their season end in the conference tournament? There's a rush to post whatever headlines you can -- even if the resulting story says nothing. Those things are notebook fodder, not, for the love of God, 12-inch stories.

@LongTimeListener, @Johnny Dangerously(2) -- BINGO!

@Dick Whitman -- I think that may be an excuse people rely upon. There are always going to be great feature stories and finding them has never been easier. Google each kid on the basketballl team. See what his hometown paper wrote on him. Call the coach, parents, Podunk Press reporter (also easier finding numbers with the internets) and go fishing. Read his media guide entry. Text the SID (assuming you're friendly with him/her). You don't even have to leave your desk. With the feed the beast mentality that probably won't be broken, yes, you're going to have crappy stories. But you'll be paid off by working every possible angle.

 

But every beat writer does all of that. One hundred times over. There are only 12 players on a team, approximately. Typically every one of them has had the epic treatment at some point. Press conferences may be lame, but there is immediacy to events like the NCAA Tournament, and the nuts and bolts need to be reported. It's not just a staging ground for writers to channel Gary Smith. Nor are the logistics conducive to it at that point. The access is what the access is.

I understand the idea of the write-around. But fuck almighty, at some point, the actual subject matters, too. S.L. Price talked to 70 people for his Calipari feature. But a lot of the best stuff still came from Calipari himself (granted, Price was probably tipped off on what line of questioning might be fruitful by others).

The problem with the write-around with college athletes is that a lot of the time, you are using parents and high school coaches. Usually, the kid was the best player on his high school team, and the coach is going to give high praise. Same with parents, of course.

I full advocate breaking away from the pack. But not at the expense of being the lone dolt who misses the story of the day. (If indeed it really is the story of the day, and not something like "Coach pleased team makes tournament.")

I full admit there is a big CYA aspect to daily coverage. Which brings me back to the original point - if The Shane wants writers to change how they work, it is the editors who need to alter the culture and not come down and come down hard if a guy misses a sprained ankle nugget that everybody else has. (And that, frankly, fans do are about).

 

In our world, the Beast has only grown larger. Not only are we filling up printed pages every day, we're also filling up a Web site on our most important beat with additional copy as well. That never goes away. Does it stifle creativity? Sure does. But the good ones still work to provide a different twist even on the most everyday stories, whether it's in notebooks, sidebars, blog posts, or breakouts.

 

I never read Buster Olney's NYT stuff, but supposedly he was the master of this. I don't remember her name, but there was a Jets beat writer at the NYT who people here were very critical of because she allegedly took the find-something-different approach to a counter-productive extreme.

 

Olney was must read on Yankee gamers. Even if you watched the game you would learn something new.

Female writer you are thinking of is Karen Crouse. She should have never been assigned to football beat. Way over her head.

 

I though Shane brought up a lot of good points. While he was wrong for stereotyping all sports writers in such a broad fashion, and he apologized for such, that doesn't take away that a lot of writers don't write with passion these days and have taken a cynical approach to sports. I, too, admire writers who you can tell love sports and have passion, not only for their craft, but also for games. I find it also true that the longer you stay in this industry, the more your love for sports and games is sapped from you.

 

You stereotype as well as Shane does.

 

Having "passion" and "love" for sports is like having "passion" and "love" for a woman.

I grew up rooting for the team I now cover. If I carried the same white-hot, raw, face-painting "passion" for this team on a day-to-day basis now, this job would have killed me years ago. I still "love" sports, but at the end of the day, what I love about them is that they give me something to write about.

Writing is my passion.

It's like being in love with a woman. You just can't keep up the level of fucking-like-rabbits passion you have at the start of a relationship through 50 years of marriage. You have to keep the burners on low, lest you risk completely burning out.

Moral of the story: You can still love your work without five-fiving the players you are paid to cover.

 

I remember when I was 22. I knew everything, too.

 

Wow, that dude really threw me under the bus. I didn't wade through it all -- did I get an apology somewhere in there, too?

 

Ron would have scorched the guy. Pretty sure it would have included the phrase "talking out his" ... well ... you know ...