Klosterman's four ways to save sports journalism

Page 120 of the newest Esquire with Benicio del Toro on the cover. Not up on the magazine's Web site yet (Jones go slap the webmonkeys around for us).

Anyway, Klosterman proposes...
1. Stop reporting on TV ratings
2. Kill the "argument" model
3. De-emphasize the fan's perspective
4. Slow down, we don't need everything reported as it happens

Lot more to it, but it's an interesting article. Go read it.

 

1. Absolutely agree. Let the ratings fall where they may. A print folo is neither necessary nor relevant.
2. If the argument model isn't beaten to death, I don't see a problem with it. A different angle and a fresh perspective is sometimes what makes sports journalism fun. (This is not to be mistaken with being contrarian for contrarian's sake ... )
3. We're supposed to be objective, not fanboy loooosers in print. In other words, it should go without saying.
4. The most important point. BLOGS(!) and the Web have print journalists in too much of a panic. Sure, use it ... I'm not some ink-stained wretch that has a problem with technology. But publishing companies feel like they have to compensate for having only a few deadlines a day by posting stuff at will. Stop ... it's overkill.

 

OK, so when's he going to work to have his pal Simmons fired?

 

Seriously, why should I listen to Klosterman?

What has he ever done to be the voice on this topic?

Who - besides him - even thinks sports journalism needs saving? I could make a very strong argument that sports journalism is being practiced at a much higher level now than at any other point in our history.

 

You should listen to Klosterman because he's a brilliant guy who knows what he's talking about.

 

I'm certainly not saying that. But it is any interesting article and it seems to be aimed more at ESPN than daily papers.

 

Chuck Klosterman hasn't managed a 1K circ paper in the southeast corner of State X.
What Chuck Klosterman can tell me is what he thinks a newspaper should be. His views are as valid as my neighbors'. His insight, and experience, end after he hits SEND to file his story in Outlook.

He's erudite and a wonderful writer. Yet, his model is a magazine model. One that would render daily editions superfluous and unnecessary.

 

Mr Wretch,

Just out of interest, when has ESPN reported ratings, its or anybody else's? That seems far more directed at the dailies. BTW It's a much bigger problem with the entertainment/arts/life section. And, fact is, it's not ratings that are a ruin as much as poll #s in political reporting.

I've never been a Klosterman fan--though my oldest daughter is a fan. As far as ideas guy go, he's no Malcolm Gladwell, which is to say he's not original, not gifted with writing ability and a reporter's instincts/hustle. I second whoever put forward the motion that his "insight" is of no greater value than any other reader of a sports section.

I'll come up with four ways to save Chuck Klosterman.

1. Philip Glass
2.

YHS, etc

 

Haven't read the article. But I remember a piece about newspapers he wrote for one of his books that was quite interesting and, I thought, insightful. Since it's actually on a nearby bookshelf, I'll quote a part of it (it's from Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs). "Are media outlets controlled by massive, conservative corporations? Well, of course they are. Massive conservative corporations own everything. Are most individual members of the media politically liberal? Absolutely. If talented writers honestly thought the world didn't need to be changed, they'd take jobs in advertising that are half as difficult andd three times as lucrative." But he then writes that those things are irrelevant and there's not any grand media conspiracy.

And he does have quite a bit of newspaper experience, so it's not like someone who has never written for a daily paper. Several years in Fargo and then Akron.

 

I loved every minute of reading his book "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs." It made a lot of time fly by, including a four-hour break at a wrestling tournament. He brings up a lot of great points, but they're mostly for debate, so it seems. He's a very good writer, but it's mostly his own stories and thoughts -- not a staggering amount of research. I'll probably check this book out, too.

 

New information, novel insight is not noted.

Really, corporations own everything?
Really, there are liberals in the media?
Writers, creatives think through work change can be influenced?

 

Some of you don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards to Klosterman. But that is really beside the point of the message, which, I think, is a good one.


I think I'll leave it at that.