Other people's accomplishments

I guess there are two ways to cover this. One - as entertainment, celebrity journalism for men. The other - like big business, which is what it is.

Of course, fans and readers fly off the handle when you cover their team as anything other than the knights in shining armor of their particular sport.

 

I think a certain segment of the readership does, and they're always the most vocal, but I think it's a mistake to think that everyone wants their coverage that way. Some people just read the paper, enjoy the coverage, and are content to say nothing and just continue to subscribe or read on-line.

I think having a good staff is about balance; if one writer covers the sport in a way that caters more toward the fanbois then hopefully you have another writer who sees it differently.

 

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory or defeat."

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt was impressed by sportswriters.

 

"The only two times I cast a vote with enthusiasm was for (Teddy) Roosevelt. He was the mounteback incarnate, the supreme reductio ad absurdum of democracy-perhaps even of civilization." -- H.L. Mencken.

Works both ways.

 

Fawn Hall quoted that as the rationale for the Iran-Contra coverup.
Always hated that quote.

 

And 8 yrs after "the man in the arena" speech, TR spoke of the critic's importance...

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

 

Sirs, Madames,

We all have our accomplishments. I don't see much point in comparing mine to my peers. I have no idea how I'd compare them to someone outside my field but why would I even if I could? It's like comparing brain surgeons to plumbers -- one saves lives, the other makes lives tolerable, both are indispensible in their own way. Yeah, we chronicle other people's accomplishments and our accomplishments are within our own metier. With athletes and sportswriting, the game and the story are the same: in some ways timeless, in others completely disposable, vital to some, meaningless to most, appreciated by those within, incomprehensible to those outside ...

You know what? I was feeling better about this until I started typing.

When it comes to job satisfaction ... I've worked construction as a hobby/favor to a friend the last few summers. I've dug ditches and poured concrete ... and the worst construction job gives me more satisfaction than my usual round of golf, so what do I know?

YD&OHS, etc

 

Not trying to pick a fight, but you don't appear to be too impressed by them either, chief.

 

No fight picked. But you're right, I'm not, and I'm one of y'all.

It's a good gig, if you can take the hours and the relatively modest pay. But I don't read 90 percent of what 90 percent of sportswriters produce anymore. Wright Thompson, Scott Price and a pretty small group of others are fortunate to have earned positions that allow them to do, quite often, the best of what "we" can do. But most of us are painting barns, not masterpieces. Or of course, blogging.

 

Someone I greatly respect in this business told me last weekend that where the business went wrong is by trying to market a product built for readers to people who aren't readers.

I see what you're saying about the minimal amount of high-end work being done, but I will say this: a barn would look pretty silly with the Sistine Chapel painted on the side.

 

Strong.

 

That's one of the big reasons I lost my passion for it. I started wondering why I wanted to stand around and try to talk to these guys about their accomplishments rather than go out and accomplish some things on my own.

Not that I've gone out and made any great accomplishments on my own, but I didn't like that feeling.