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!

i'm without speech

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by shockey, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    OK.

    Glazer's piece was over the top. But frankly, that's Jay.

    And I hate to say it, but a lot of readers are going to go from start to finish, with interest. Most of our readers are not, well, us.

    But what really bugs me is this whole A) if we're just breaking sports news, it's not the Pentagon Papers, so it's not important, so it's not breaking news and B) if you break a story by a half hour, who'll remember or care, so what's the big deal? Sorry, Ragu, on this we just do not agree.

    So A) people like Glazer aren't covering politics or wars. They're covering sports. It's part of this diverse business we're all in. Woodward and Bernstein weren't going to get Joe Gibbs returning to the Redskins (another Glazer story, by the way), because that's not their beat. It's Glazer's. In this case, he kicked ass. Relative to others in his profession, on the biggest story IN his profession that day, he was the star.

    B) I really don't get the attitude about there not being much worth to breaking news. You know why it's worth something? Actually, two reasons: 1) When it's a huge story, and it leaves the rest of the country trailing far behind, it's a big deal. If every AP writethru is saying "as first reported by foxsports.com," it matters. And if it's repeated in newspapers all over the country, hell, it's branding.

    But the one I keep repeating is: 2) Why they hell would anybody in this business not find it to be simply a lot of fun, one of the things we get to celebrate in this business, to beat everybody on a big story, no matter by how much? You don't enjoy seeing your byline, and new information nobody has under it, on the front page of a newspaper or front and center on a website? Or editing and producing that?

    If you're a writer/reporter or editor and don't, I just don't get it. It's one of the most exciting things about this business. And if you're one of the big websites or newspaper sites, winning that battle by 20 minutes is still exhilarating. Or should be.
     
  2. Matt1735

    Matt1735 Well-Known Member

    SF_Express just nailed it.
     
  3. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I'm not going to lie ... the competitive part of me loves breaking news. SF Express is dead-on about that.

    That said, I wouldn't start a blog about it.
     
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    I'm not a journalist but if I were, I'd think getting breaking news would be something that gets the competitive juices going.

    I remember the Toronto Star scooping a major story a couple of years ago. Quite frankly I can't remember what it was but the Star rode that story for about four days straight. The Globe, the Sun and the Post were all left holding their dicks.

    I thought to myself at the time, "There must be heads exploding at the other three papers"

    That said, I couldn't get past paragraph four in this thing. Godawful stuff.
     
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    That's cool ... let's just separate out the two issues.

    Credibility risk: I DO wonder if at least some readers would be interested in the whole process of how he finally got the story -- although certainly without some of the foot-massagish details.
     
  6. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    I'd be curious about how he got the story but not so much that I want to wade through all the extraneous crap. And this guy is one bad writer.
     
  7. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Obviously, Glazer is a good reporter. He works his sources well, maybe better than anyone. And he was on top of this story. But one thing from that article bothered me:

    So, given that he had his stories written not that day, not even the day before, but a WEEK ahead of time, how much news was he actually breaking other than which team finally got Favre? Was he just the first one to fire up the laptop and hit the send button? Was his phone number just on top of his source's speed dial, before he called guys like Mort and the beat writers?
    I just have to wonder how much "news" there was in that initial report he's bragging about breaking. From the sound of it, it doesn't seem like he was digging up a ton of new facts during his time at the airport.
     
  8. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I don't know, Batman. Pretty standard stuff...

    Three quarters of that story was background, was another fairly meaty section about what acquiring Favre would mean to his new team, and that was obviously different depending on which team it was. Glazer also likely had potential trade terms in each case.

    In a lot of breaking stories of this type -- deal stories -- only the first two or three paragraphs are new. It's like an obit written ahead of time in many respects.
     
  9. Bullwinkle

    Bullwinkle Member

    People write gamers all the time without even watching the second half ...
     
  10. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    We're critical of everything. It's an expected part of the job and at times an occupational hazard. That said, this thread quickly devolved into an extrapolated bout of navel gazing. Here's a news flash: We are not the target audience for this piece. Apparently, the target audience likes this sort of thing, because Glazer was ordered to do it. So he wrote a play-by-play of not only how he got the story but what else was going on at the time. It's not Pulitzer material, but it's not as bad a piece of writing as some of you are saying, either.

    Frankly, I see no valid argument that the Favre trade wasn't news. This piece about Glazer's day at the airport, perhaps not so much. But again, apparently people wanted to read it, or at least his editors thought so. For all the platitudes we make about "don't tell me about the labor, just show me the baby," at the end of the day, people read it.
     
  11. I hate self-congratulatory columns "The people at Fox wanted me to write this" Yeah, I'm sure you really protested loudly.

    It was a huge story that every national outlet had people working on for a month.

    Breaking the news of the Favre trade is what Glazer will be remembered for.
     
  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Ragu nailed it, but I am curious whether Glazer actually did get it (momentarily) first or the same time as others or just behind the pack.

    Also wondered who is "sources" were -- or at least whether they were legit, good sources or second-hand kinda guys you'd never rush into print with.

    The story was boring and narcissistic.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page