D'oh! Sports writer tells mag.. he's embarassed to cover sports.

First, I'd beg to differ that 80 to 90 percent of this board would take the Nationals job in a heartbeat. I sure as hell wouldn't. Not only are you covering a life-sucking beat, you are covering a horrendous team with little to no chance of competing in the near future. I've had people tell me that losing teams are fun ones to cover. But I hate watching losing teams. I got into sports writing because I like covering athletic excellence, and I think that human stories set against a backdrop of athletic excellence are some of the most compelling there are. The Nationals are not excellent. Far from it. The ownership blows and the front office is impossible to deal with, from what I understand.

Second, I agree Chico comes across poorly in the article. And, fairly or unfairly, it doesn't do much to eliminate the stigma of arrogance and entitlement that is often attached to Syracuse grads. However, as journalists I think we are all aware that someone's verbatim words are not always an accurate reflection of the viewpoint they were attempting to express. And I can definitely understand why Chico would use the word "embarassed." I'll be honest -- I am embarassed to cover sports sometimes. I'm embarassed that on certain days my life revolves around asking another man how his groin feels. I'm embarassed when I stand and watch grown men beg other grown men for their autographs. I'm embarassed that I'm not making the world a better place. I'm embarassed that other reporters are in war-torn lands, and I'm at a basketball game.

But, always, that embarassment passes, and I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, I am fortunate to do what I do.

 

Prayers and good luck in advance for the responses headed your way.

 

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the shits. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

 

Nobody said anything about being a fan. I just find people far more pleasant and easy to deal when they are winning. Besides, when you cover a winning team, more people care about what you are writing, and you have a bigger presence in the paper. It has nothing to do with being a fan.

 

Excellent point. People say something, it's on tape, and they know they said it....then they see it in print and say, "But that's not what I meant," even though it's an exact quote. Didn't someone claim to have been misquoted in their own autobiography. It happens, but it shouldn't happen to someone who understands the process of interviewing and writing.

 

So you would wait for the Nationals to be good before you would take the job? To me, what you're saying is far more embarrassing than what Chico said.

 

No,

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I am not among the 90 percent who would allegedly love to have the job that Chico has. I like my job better, for a variety of reasons. And I find rather juvenile the sentiment that a man is not allowed to bitch about his job simply because some people view it as an upgrade over theirs. Like I said before, he didn't come across very well. I'm sure he regrets saying what he said. I wouldn't have said it. Perhaps it does hint at a unjustified sense of entitlement. Whatever the case, the notion that he should be absolutely in love with his job just because he isn't covering preps in northern Alaska is stupid.

 

Nobody said he isn't allowed to bitch about his job. Doing it in print is stupid. Saying he is embarrassed by it absolutely demonstrates an annoying sense of entitlement, whether it be justified or not.