Pete Thamel on Nerlens Noel, sans Nerlens Noel

If there's anything wrong with a story, you can bet ol' Versatile will point it out.

 

Whom does she play quarterback for?

 

I know--what a monster. Actually trying to discuss substantive issues about sports journalism? How dare he distract from bitching about middle-school water polo parents and debating the great philosophical questions of our times, such as whether co-workers can refer to teams as "we".

 

What percentage of readers do you think came away from story thinking "man Thamel really set me up , I
thought this story was about Nerlens Noel ?

 

My biggest issue with the story might be the decision to write it at all. Although this particular version of the story is new, the broad proposition isn't--plenty of reporters, including Pete Thamel, have documented the cesspool surrounding high school recruiting. At some point, don't even "objective" newspapers have an obligation to move beyond simply descriptive stories into ones that take a much more in-depth look at why this is happening and how it can be fixed? Certainly stories like this give some insight into bigger picture issues--as Thamel attempts to do throughout this--but it still remains relatively cursory. To use a simple example, recruiting scandal stories never have quotes from economists, who would certainly explain to them black markets form when you ban certain exchanges.

I also found it interesting that to the extent Thamel lapses into "advocacy" journalism, he rails against agents and seems to take the position that although the NCAA is right to have no agent rules in place, they have failed to ensure their execution. Joe Nocera, though, uses Thamel's story as evidence the NCAA should eliminate its rules re: agents: http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/the-case-for-agents/.

 

I really enjoy discussions of good stories. It's the only real reason I visit this message board. I enjoy those discussions enough to read most every one. It just seems that nine times out of 10 [and I'm not sure it's not 10 times out of 10], Versatile makes a habit of finding and moaning about some detail that somehow ruins the entire story for him/her. As if he/she reads it for that purpose and that purpose alone. I've also noticed that the complaining almost exclusively centers on the work of younger writers.

I just find it interesting.

Never met Pete Thamel. Read him often, though, and think he did a very nice job on this story. Would it have been better with Noel? You bet. The absence, though, does not overshadow the remarkable reporting that went into this piece. Then again, I tend to remember the things I like about what I read, rather than the things I don't.

 

Are these writers going to lose their scholarships?

Perfectly appropriate to learn from good writing as well as bad. And even then, Versatile, as far as I've seen, never highlights what he considers "bad" writing--typically he points out pieces he liked that he thinks could have been improved.

 

Nice of you to stick up for your friend. However, I have seen plenty of unfair criticism along with Versatile's helpful hints. Many of these posts smack of pettiness and jealousy. Perhaps I'm jumping to a conclusion, but I have seen it many, many times over the past few months.

But I'll look at it your way. We're all very lucky to have such a terrific--and clearly objective--critic in our midst, one who knows much more than some of the best writers and editors in the country.

 

Seems like Les Wynan ought to do more thinkin' and less whinin'.

 

les_wynan, I actually liked the story. You'd probably know that if you read my post. I didn't like how it was presented. I also read a lot of sports journalism, and I like to bring up interesting stories with the board. I can't think of a single instance in which I've pointed out a story because it was bad. Maybe you can. Please show me. I respect the hell out of Pete Thamel. I read almost everything he writes. But I really would like to know how I target writers? The most pointed thread I've started was about a website update. I've defended the hell out of writers young and old routinely. In this case, I would counter lcjjdnh's point about Thamel needing to take a stand because it's not his job. It's Joe Nocera's job, and he does that well.

 

That's terrific that you read a lot of sports journalism. So do many people here and elsewhere. This doesn't make you unusual. What makes you unusual is that you are the only one I notice who goes out of his/her way to find fault with every story you discuss. Every one.

I don't doubt that you are intelligent and well-read. This comes across in your posts. But they also drip with a bitterness that I find disappointing and often unfair. In the Thamel discussion, I don't have a dog in the fight. When I saw that you started the thread, I already knew the crux of what you had written. I clicked on it and...yep.

I'll put it like this: Either you're bitter and bored, or you somehow know more about the craft of writing than some of the smartest and most talented folks in the business. In either case, I find them very interesting.

 

Not bitter, definitely bored. I could start 10 threads a week about great columns and great features and great game stories. That might even be a good idea for a running thread.

But those stories don't often make for interesting topics of discussion. You're right that I have in the past said, "Hey, this was a good story, but ..." But without the "but," what's the point of the discussion? Where's it going? I will never write a story as good as Thomas Lake's on Pop Herring, but that doesn't mean I'm unfit to think critically about it. (I should add, I didn't start either of those threads.) Lake's my favorite sports writer working. But we all should be thinking critically about what we read. It theoretically could make us better writers or editors or designers or photographers or agate clerks. Isn't that the point? The threads where everyone says, "Wow, great story," are terribly boring.

Again, I liked Thamel's story. I didn't think the presentation matched the story's tone. That's a journalism topic, one that I was hoping would lead to some debate. It did. That's all I have to say on the matter. Thanks for your insights.