Not going on the road

Because in a day when we have to do everything possible to make the newspaper essential reading and to differentiate it from all the other sources of information on every single team out there, straight game stories and news reporting isn't, in my opinion, going to cut it anymore. But, to not be hypocritical or seem as if this is somehow all new to me, I've been arguing this point with people in our business for more than 25 years now.

 

Folks need to get off their high horses on all this "conflict of interest" stuff. We're all going to "conflict" ourselves right out of the business.
I traveled with an NHL team for seven years. Every plane. Stayed in the team hotel when it was cheaper. Ate the food. Watched the movies. Rode the bus. And in seven years, I wrote everything I wanted to write, including things I wouldn't have seen if I hadn't been on the plane or the bus. We paid our own hotel bill and the planes were a trade-out for playoff advertising. If they didn't make the playoffs, it was a cash transaction.
On back-to-back nights, I was at the morning skate, which I never would have been had I traveled alone. I saw who was limping, who needed medical attention, what the bones of contention were post game, who didn't like who on the team. Think readers appreciated the extra info?
If you really think you are serving your readers and/or upholding the standards of journalism by covering a team from your couch, have at it. But this is a different time. Folks who scream at their bosses and companies for layoffs and shutterings but refuse to look into more cost-effective ways of doing the job are hypocrites of the highest order.

 

Then you have no problem with someone writing an advance to a game, then a follow after the team loses, and then a column the next day calling for the coach's firing, then another advance before the next game?

I just don't understand the progression there. If you want to differentiate yourself, that does it, because I can't imagine anyone who supports that coach wanting to read anything that individual writes the rest of the season - columns or not.

That's only one example, of course.

 

You're right.

I have no problem with that.

 

Fair enough. Agree to disagree then.

 

That's exactly right.

 

10000 percent right.

 

That is the type of stuff most people outside the business have no clue about what we do. Sadly, I don't think many would really care even if they knew.

 

If that was "exaggerating to make a point," Mark, I must have missed any hint of a blue font. Point of reference: I do work in a factory. Six days instead of five every third week, but other than that, I'm done after 40. Sure, the work is a little more physically demanding than covering a game. But I also know that during football season, I'm working about half the hours of the SE up the road from me who also covers an NFL team ... and probably for roughly the same pay. (Or at least I was, before I picked up the preps gig on the side.)

Back on topic: of course, dropping road coverage will have a negative effect on the product. There's no logical way to deny that. Everything is about the bottom line these days, though, and it's tough to quantify the impact in dollars and cents to the people making those decisions. And that truly sucks for both the writers whose jobs are affected by the move and the readers who want to keep seeing that information.

Does the dividing line between reporting and commentary still exist, when just about every guy I know on the local NFL beat also presents some analysis on their blogs, radio/TV appearances, or both? That topic is big enough for its own thread.
My semi-informed opinion: while the "fire-the-coach" columns should still ideally be left to the columnist, there is absolutely some room for commentary in the beat coverage. These days, most readers don't need the play-by-play; odds are, they've either seen the game or checked the stats/AP coverage online long before the paper hits the doorstep. What they CAN use is insight from an informed, objective observer. And if that includes a little analysis, so be it ... as long as all the facts behind it are unassailable.

 

Who better than a beat writer to write columns? Does the fan go into the clubhouse? Does the fan know how the organization acts? Do most columnists go to enough games to do more than a drive-by? Give beat writers some credit. They know (or should) what's going on with a team more than anyone except the team, coaches and GM. That insight should be passed on to the readers. If you can't write something critical (or even something that praises) without dealing with feedback from those you cover, get out of the way.

 

Being a beat writer, I'm well aware of what the job description is, thanks. And knowing a few damn good columnists, I would say that most, if not all, of them are well-connected enough by going to games or practices to form educated opinions.

And it's not about dealing with the feedback. It's the perception of publicly expressing opinions that one should not be doing as an objective, independent observer.

 

I'm right there with you, zebracoy.

I have no problem writing a column now and then. But I've never agreed with the idea of writing a column just to write a column. I'd rather do a sidebar to add more depth to the event coverage.