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!

Another NASCAR writer off the tour

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SportsGuyBCK, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    FRET NOT!

    http://www.mikemulhern.net/
     
  2. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I really don't even know where to begin:
    For Monte to be treated this way after what he has brought to that paper for so many years shows what kind of pieces of shit newspaper executives are.
    For the Gaston Gazette to dump its NASCAR coverage shows what kind of stupid pieces of shit newspaper executives are.
    For this to even been a thought should show NASCAR what kind of tumble it has taken over the last few years.
    With all due respect to AP or anyone else, not having older guys (Monte, Woody, Poole, Minter, Harris, Hodge, Deb Williams) around that has knowledge predating Days of Thunder ... well, a lot is lost.
    I fully suspect that Monte will land OK.
     
  3. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Well-Known Member

    Frankly, while I feel bad for Monte losing his job, I cannot fathom any small to mid-size newspaper covering NASCAR with a reporter dedicated solely to it in this day and age. And the metros have been dead from the begining of this tumble with their oversized newsrooms, oversized budgets and overpaid hacks that specialize in one thing.

    Information is too easily gathered and too widely spread to cover this like it used to be. We all know that's the truth. A lot of you guys who are bitchin and moaning, are living in a GD dream world. Get over it. Same goes for the PGA Tour writers.

    Times are changing. Re-invent yourself or STFU.
     
  4. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    The difference is Monte's product was a money-maker for his paper.
     
  5. Sam Mills 51

    Sam Mills 51 Well-Known Member

    Correct. So if Monte and what he was doing was helping the company make money, why be so eager to dump it?

    Change what has worked? Change something clearly profitable? Um, OK ...
     
  6. BenPoquette

    BenPoquette Active Member

    Now we know why you are kind of shelved, what do you think about what happened to Monte as well as the lack of an "old guard" keeping tabs on the sport? I'm just curious.
     
  7. murphyc

    murphyc Well-Known Member

    Woody and several others like Jim Pedley and John Sturbin are with racintoday.com, which also gets some stories from Harris and Deb Williams, among others.
    Al Pearce still covers NASCAR for Autoweek, which is an ironic name considering it comes out every other week now. And yes, the word ironic was used in honor of Pearce, since I've never seen a writer use the word more than him.
     
  8. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Well-Known Member

    RE: wicked, Sam Mills:

    You know, maybe what Monte was doing was making money, but maybe it wasn't making what it used to be. Maybe all the effort and expense wasn't worth the dwindling profits. Maybe, they decided to use the same resources and effort in an area that is producing higher profitibility.

    Think people! These decisions aren't just pulled out of a rabbit's hat. There is a calculation for future projections. I suspect that Monte's content was not producuing the same kind of revenue it had before. I suspect they decided they could spend that money elsewhere and be more profitable.

    I know you guys like Monte and I've got no beef with the guy. But this is a business decision pure and simple. You go where the money goes. I'm sure there was serious consideration in making this move.

    Now quit your bitching and understand that there are econmic factors at play here. You can't continue to live in the past and remain profitable. Geezus. You guys spout off on here like the dimwits on the phone.
     
  9. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    Making money is making money.

    I've never understood a business shelving a product because it was making money, but not enough. Profit is profit. Less profit, to me, would seem to be the opposite of whatever a business is trying to achieve.

    I don't have an MBA, though, so there's that.
     
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    I have $100 a month to invest in a project. I've always invested in Project A, which historically has returned $200/month. Lately though, the return has dropped to $150/month. And my accounts are projecting that it will drop to $110/month or worse pretty soon. Meanwhile, I can invest in Project B and expect a $300/month return. But if I switch, I'm killing a project that makes money.

    Now I don't think for a second that this paper or any other has a sure-fire Project B. But that is how it works in theory.
     
  11. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    That, I get. That usually doesn't happen in our business, though, as you know.
     
  12. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Well-Known Member

    Thank you. My argument perfectly spelled out. dixiehack gets it.

    And, I agree about Project B. The point is, newspapers are moving on or at least considering other options. The alternative, standing still, is like trying to save the Titanic with two guys and a couple of buckets.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page