New York Times sports reporting

First of all, allow me to come out of the closet. I'm a close friend of New York Times sports editor Tom Jolly, and I have great respect him as a person and a professional. I had the privilege of working for him at the Pittsburgh Press.

I'm posting under my name, with Mr. at the front, because Scott Newman was taken. I'm not looking for a job with Mr. Jolly. While once a sports reporter and an investigative tv producer, my career in traditional sports journalism is over. I'm the head of North American syndication sales and international data media syndication for Bloomberg LP.

Anyone who knows me, I'm sure, appreciates that I'm a big fan of breaking news--and detested some of the laziness that propagated the news business.

That said, I'd like to applaud Mr. Jolly and everyone at the NYT who contributed to a spectacular week for them and the business--the story on Harvard's possible basketball recruiting violations, and the story today on Clemens and him possibly obtaining steriods or HGH in the Houston area.

I get a rare view from my job at Bloomberg to see both sides of news operations, the business/sales and editorial. It isn't pretty, of couse--and based on chats I've had with publishers, there could be as much as 40 percent of news room personnel disappearing over the next 10-12 months.

However, the only way sports journalism, and this business, is going to rebound and thrive -- is via great reporting, and producing stories that no one else will do--or take the time and effort to do.

Scott

 

Scott - Can you talk a little about the "laziness" you see. Not calling people out, of course, but interested in hearing further observations on this. Because I think I know what you're saying - basically beat writers being reactionary instead of forcing the issue, correct? I think that's toxic to our relevance, but it happens a lot.

 

-- I go through newsrooms and there is virtual silence; no one talking to anyone; no one calling sources; no energy. It's all about the filling the paper or doing a blog, without regard to who or how many are reading.
-- as those who worked with me or around me know--I have little tolerance for lack of effort, generating news, or talking to everyone and anyone possible; The lack of verve, unwillingness to tackle difficult stories, and worrying about backlash from popular subjects, that, is what eventually chased me out; What's happened is simple? The Internet, and growth in media has leveled the playing field, as far as access, and many blogs, web sites, are much more plugged-in and more informative than what's generated at major metro dailies.
-- The positive is that web sites and others are compensating people such as Jon Heyman, and the guys who did the Balco story--for their innovation and hard-work. What is going to happen is that the papers will shrink, workforces will be cut, and it'll come down to a game of eyeballs versus cost of labor--and that, will be an eventual positive. Those with inside information, or info people can't get anywhere else will be richly rewarded -- and the rest--will be left in the dust.

 

Just so we understand the direction you're going in here, did you start this thread to congratulate the Times or take everyone else to task for not performing to your standards of excellence?

 

Actually, both. Would love to hear your views on the business, since I love talking about it? Who are you? Where do you work? What stories that you've done, are you proud of? How do you see things? Scott

 

THE NYT IS ONE OF THE FEW PAPERS STILL DOING GREAT WORK. AGREED ON THE ENERGY IN THE NEWSROOM. THAT SAID, MOST OF THE REALLY GOOD MAJOR METRO REPORTERS/COLUMNISTS (INCLUDING THE NYT) WHOM I KNOW DON'T SPEND ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE OFFICE. IF THEY DO, THEY'RE TURNING IN EXPENSES OR PICKING UP A CHECK, NOT REPORTING. THEY GO TO PRACTICE. THEY WORK FROM HOME. THEY SHOW FACE IN THE OFFICE NOW AND THEN. I WONDER HOW MUCH OF THIS CONTRIBUTES TO THE TREND OF YOUNGER REPORTERS WHO DON"T KNOW ANY BETTER SITTING IN THE OFFICE, SURFING THE INTERNET, NOT QUITE KNOWING WHAT TO DO.

I DISAGREE ON ACCESS. FEW BLOGS GET THE ACCESS THAT REPORTERS AT MAJOR METRO PAPERS STILL ENJOY. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT INFORMATION BEING KING. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN KING, THOUGH. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A GROUP OF PAPERS GO ONE DIRECTION (SOUTH) WHILE THE INDUSTRY LEADERS (NYT, WASH POST, WSJ AND SOME SMALLER PAPERS WHO STILL SERVE THE READER) CONTINUE TO DO GREAT ENTERPRISING WORK.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THE VETS CHANGE THEIR HABITS UNLESS THE JETS, GIANTS START HOLDING THEIR PRACTICES IN THE BUILDING, EITHER.

 

Thats because things are different now. Every reporter has a cell phone and a laptop with a wireless connection. They file one site, or from home. They don't come to the office.

 

I hate sitting in the office. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it. Hate talking on the phone in front of co-workers, especially. Hate having to look busy, or feel like people are judging whether I'm really working or not (particularly on, say, a lengthy project, a lot of that time is spent on research, which can look like "surfing the Web").

 

Sports writers are rarely in the office.

News reporters are often glued to their chairs.

 

We don't out people on this board, Scotty.

 

I've noticed that. Why is that?

 

I think the tendency is to be more reactive. Report from a council meeting, crash scene, etc. and they plan their whole week around those events or wait by the phone.

A sports writer may have one game or one news conference scheduled and a week of stories to write, so he's out there hustling.