Gabriel Sherman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/sports-journalism-2011-12/

Glad he used the Times series on Boogaard as an example. Can't believe it hasn't been talked about more here.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

But reporters can only talk to people in press conferences these days.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

The second paragraph of the quote might have been true 20 years ago. I don't think it's nearly as true today and hasn't been for quite some time.

But even allowing that it's still somewhat true, here's what bugs me, and I started working with IRE on getting sports sections to do more investigative reporting in sports in 1985: There are still games to cover, and people still want to read about players and other athletes, and sports sections or websites can't simply drop all that and start doing all stories like the Boogaard series, which was indeed extraordinary.

There has to be both to serve readers; and a lot of readers don't care about "issues," like it or not.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

The thing is, there are a million places to read gamers and opinion.

Not many places to read something like the Times series. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best sports section in the country.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

What newspapers today are going to give a reporter, or team of reporters, six months to work on something exclusively? Then, give them 15,000 words and 3-4 pages per section as with the NYT's presentation of the hockey series?

I'm looking at one of the days of the series and the entire first page of Sports has nothing but the Boogaard story, headlines and small graphic. It's not whored out with charts, timelines, sidebars and fancy shit cluttering up the story or emphasis.

Good for the NYT. I'm thrilled they still have the resources and manpower to do these projects. If other newspapers can -- AND WILL -- then good for them. The "will" part may be the key.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

By golly, the NYMag guy is right -- we have taken off the blinders and become more aggressive. The LAT noted the same trend.

In 1989.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-23/news/mn-2423_1_sports-scores-and-statistics-page

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

This.

The argument is nothing new and the "trend" is nothing new. Two newspapers won Pulitzer Prizes for their in-depth work on NCAA violations in the 1980s. SF_Express also makes a very good point: Many readers just want us to cover the games and the teams and the injuries and the depth chart shifts.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

To be fair, pointing out articles from the '80's doesn't necessarily rebut the point.

Plenty of time in between for several trends to come and go.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

That writer is a perfect spokesman for the idea that sports sections should go out of their way to appeal to people who don't and would never read the sports section. There has been a lot of that in newsrooms for decades. Usually doesn't rear its head until the Olympics, though.

Call the Boogard series what it is: a great, great story. Those have been around.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

I think it does rebut the point, actually. And I think the LAT story was more than a decade late with it, possibly two decades late. I happened to remember that one because I liked reading the late David Shaw's stuff about newspapers. The attitude in sports departments had pretty much turned by the time I got in the biz as a teen in 1976. I think the NYMag guy is reaching a pretty lazy conclusion.

 

Re: Gabriel Sheman on the new renaissance in sports journalism

It boggles my mind that newsies out there are still so married to the Toy Department stereotype that they think that the NYT story, while excellent, was indicative of some sort of recent seismic shift.

There is, to be sure, plenty of bad sports writing out there. And plenty of bad news reporting, too. And, as someone pointed out, we do need to report on the meat-and-potatoes stuff. I would get 10 times as many hits, maybe more, for a story on an ankle sprain or a recruiting commitment than an in-depth explanatory or issue piece.

But newspapers do those stories. Scan the APSE explanatory, series, and investigative categories. There is no lack of good stuff out there. And there was well before it happened to appear in the one sports section that New York Magazine, I assume, would lower itself to sully its eyeballs scanning.