Pearlman does preps

Fair point. I don't recall the specifics, but I do know that it was a benefit to have people who have accomplished something to chime in now and then. And it also benefits everyone to learn from each other, regardless of our experience/accomplishments. Just disappointing that it doesn't happen much anymore. I am still baffled by why so many people who post here seem to despise the business.

 

You don't think that happens now?

 

It does, but the comment about "despise the business" also rings true.

There are also some now-prominent posters here who think they know way more about journalism than they do.

 

I liked Jones, actually, and would check out when things got ugly there. The last time he was here, he got pissy with me for challenging an Esquire story. (It turned out I was correct. Which made him more mad.)

Whitlock just trolled people about Barry Bonds.

I don't remember MacGregor writing more than a sentence or two at a time here. His writing style is not my cup of tea anyway.

I didn't think Kindred was any great shakes here.

 

There is little to no meaningful discussion of the business on this site anymore. I still enjoy it most of the time, but I miss discussions about more than what commercials we hate or what we're watching on TV.

 

The razor-sharp discussions are still here even if they get pointed and snarky at times. The place isn't lacking because members of the coterie hit the road.

Things that seem broken are just fine.

 

I used to spend 80 percent of my time here on the Journalism Topics board. Before this thread, I can't recall the last journalism topic that I posted extensively on.

 

Unfortunately, when I started dropping by almost seven years ago, the Journalism Topics board became the "(Publication) announces cutbacks" board.

But it's cool that we still debate aspects of the news business here occasionally. When the night ends at my shop (and just about every other), there's fewer and fewer people around after deadline to chew the fat.

 

That was certainly a big part of the decline too. Too depressing. And lots of the folks here got out of the business (not always voluntarily).

 

The problem is there is no universal way to write preps. The weekly that publishes every Wednesday shouldn't have the same approach as the paper that blows out preps for Saturday morning's edition, and that approach shouldn't apply to the paper that has no Saturday edition and has to kick every to the web site and to Sunday.

In this age of immediacy and growing digital content, the key is to be flexible. And maybe that means doing more work (I know). Perhaps it's an 8-inch gamer focusing on the scoring plays and a follow-up feature. Maybe it's 15 inch featurized gamer with a scoring summary and full box.

The challenge of preps is that it's ultimately about YOUR readers. How do they consume news? Some places are still very reliant on their print product. Others have had their digital traffic explode. But the key is to always pursue those readers. Don't do something a certain way because that's how it always should be done or because that's what you were taught. Times and habits change. You'd think this business would have learned that lesson by now, but it hasn't.

 

I don't think it applies as much to preps because of the difference in readership, but I have always like the very short game story with the nuts and bolts and a column/notebook/feature as the focus. Works better in games like baseball where the outcome isn't nearly as important day to day. And as noted, you still have to be flexible.