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!

Lupica: "I don't do that" and other great outtakes from The National story

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WildBillyCrazyCat, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    i'd credit goldman....
     
  2. dirtybird

    dirtybird Well-Known Member

    That. Is. Fantastic.
     
  3. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    We seem to take it as a given that, oh, if only for better deadlines and delivery system, it would have been a success. There's no way to know either way for sure, but my guess is that is a reach. Many big papers already were running more sports content than any sane person would want to read. We weren't running magazine-length stories five days a week, but most big papers were doing it at least on Sundays. A couple years before The National launched, I was editing or laying out 80- to 120-inchers for Sundays at a large although not especially distinguished newspaper. This was not uncommon.

    As for their local writers, I worked in two markets where The National had local staffs, and although I would not bet the ranch on my memory being perfect two decades later, I do not recall us getting beat on anything significant, although I can remember when our local-newspaper competitors got their fair share of scoops at our expense. I did read The National regularly, but of course at minimum I first had to read our paper and a couple local competitors, so if I overslept or something and The National received only a cursory glance that day, no biggie. The National's local staffs were OK writers, but no better than ours and in some cases not nearly as good, and we could outstaff them 10-1 on local stories if we wanted.

    As for Lupica, the honchos knew him long before The National. Van McKenzie, in particular, had already worked with him in New York. With John Schulian out of the business and Dick Young dead, there wasn't another sports columnist in the country who could render an opinion as forcefully as Lupica could back then. I feel completely safe making that assertion, and I will also venture that he wrote arguably the best Sunday notes column of that era. Charlie Pierce did a very good job as his replacement on the three dots, but, sorry, in my opinion he was a significant downgrade. Exactly how many writing forms must the top columnist contribute when the paper has 200 other staffers? I would guess that Lupica's contract specified exactly how many.
     
  4. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Very compelling read by Pierce; his work is most enjoyable when the political bile doesn't rise up too high. I don't think I would say the National changed sports journalism, though; 6,000-word pieces did not become the rule, and tho places like ESPN.com have loaded up on columnists, I doubt the people greenlighting that decision said, "y'all, let's do what that National thing did." It was done because ESPN.com had the bucks to hire as much talent as it desired. I don't think the National was a change as much as it was a heady moment.
     
  5. Dyno

    Dyno Well-Known Member

    I liked that book, too. I always think of it as Goldman's book; I'd almost forgotten Lupica was involved!
     
  6. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    The quote that reads the most like it's simply not true:

    "Price: Emilio was saddened by the fact that it wasn't working. He said, "The problem with this fucking newspaper business is that you gotta distribute, you gotta move so many things around in trucks, unlike my television business. If we could only deliver the paper without printing it, that would be more like the business I know." I said, "All right, well there's this electronic thing developing called the Internet."

    Somehow, I doubt that was said - or even thought of - by Mr. Price in 1990.

    Makes me wonder how many of the "quotes" attributed to Azcarraga in the early part, from recollections by Price, are trustworthy. How about, if a man is dead, you don't get to directly quote him based on someone else's memory?

    Great piece otherwise.
     
  7. Kato

    Kato Well-Known Member

    I don't know. He's pretty bright. And this --
    -- was nine years earlier.
     
  8. SixToe

    SixToe Well-Known Member

    I love this quote:

     
  9. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    It always bugged me that The National was a Monday-Friday publication. Same thing about USA Today.

    But if your entire mission is sports, and you are not publishing the day after traditionally the biggest day of the week for sports . . .
     
  10. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    A couple of comments:

    1. ESPN.com isn't what it is because of Disney's deep pockets. ESPN gets $400 million per month in subscription fees. That kind of guaranteed income can fund a lot of hires.

    2. DeFord is revered as a writer but I always thought The National was partly his fault. He allowed himself to be wooed by El Tigre. DeFord knew as much about putting running a newspaper as I know about piloting the space shuttle. I remember reading where DeFord said European sports dailies were thriving. Always thought that comparison was stupid. We had a couple of people leave our shop for The National. They had their lives turned upside down because a rich guy and a talented writer wanted to play "Fantasy Baseball."

    3. I know the late Van McKenzie is revered by many on this site but I've also heard a lot of stories about him that make me think he was this force of nature that was more destructive than anything. Lots of ideas but more sizzle than steak. He was a "character" who lived for the adrenaline rush of producing a "pretty package" but didn't care a rat's ass about next month, next year.

    4. Lupica=Feinstein's cat.
     
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't think The National would succeed today, for the same reason other websites have failed. You need to grow it slowly. You can't just hire a ton of top talent and spend, spend, spend and expect it to catch on.
     
  12. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I agree with their strategy of going all-out from the start, otherwise people may or may not ever notice you. The industry's history is littered with dead start-ups that were done half-assed.

    I think their mistake was in not recognizing that in 1990 most people in big cities were already well-served by very good, hefty sports sections and that the market for even more excessive national coverage was minimal. Their egos told them people would buy because their product would be better than ours. But the truth was their product was better than ours not in every way but in only a few areas, and those areas were completely discretionary as far as how readers spend time and money.

    We'd all, for the most part, beefed up our sports sections in response to USA Today and I think that vacuum had been filled already and people were already getting more than they required. Spending a shitload of money on a national newspaper for politics in 1990 may have been a better bet than one on sports, although the advertising climate was not especially favorable at the time for anyone.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page