Rick Reilly done writing ESPN column July 1

It is impossible to have detailed knowledge of all sports, there's just too much information. The idea that only specific knowledge-based beat-specialized writers are what people want is presumptuous nonsense. Peter King is popular because the NFL is our most popular sport, but SI still does long features on people and events you've never heard of, and presumably those are popular, too. Steve Rushin wrote a piece on the Bassmaster Classic this week which was wonderful, and I doubt he covered much bass fishing before. Readers also like the idea of the writer as a trusted guide to an unfamiliar world that's as unfamiliar to the writer as to them. Readers, in short, want everything as long as its good.

 

But there are two factors at work which seem to be muddled here.

There is Reilly's style, and there is his current body of (lazy) work.

I don't think there is anything wrong with his (or Murray's) style, as long as the work ethic produces superior writing and unique insight. It did before. It doesn't today. But that's not because "today" is different; it's because the writer is different.

 

Michael_Gee and BTExpress are right. And this is where research and reporting come in.

A good reporter could know next to nothing about something and still write a good story with all the questions answered -- if they put in the work. It might not have quite the tone of history or special gravitas that a great expert in that sport or event might have, but it could still be close and just as good (or better) in other ways.

Rick Reilly could probably still do a great story on just about anything he chose if he wanted to. As this decision by him and his bosses at ESPN finally proves, he doesn't want to anymore.

 

The problem with research, when you're not an actual expert on a subject is that you don't know what you missed. You might think you've got everything covered, and still make a glaring mistake, that any expert would see in an instant.

 

This is also quite task-specific. It's one thing to write a feature piece on Marge Schott, or one of the slice-of-Americana features that Chris Ballard or Gary Smith write in SI. The idea that a generalist could step in and do the job that Ryan Lizza or Megan McCardle or Buster Olney do on their particular beats is preposterous.

If you are going to masquerade as a general sports columnist, particularly at a site like ESPN, you should at least give some indication that you give a shit about sports. I don't think that Reilly does. Maybe about golf.

 

History, including recent history, is so littered with "experts" whose expertise led to complete and utter disaster for me to feel that generalists have no place in journalism. Specialists in any field tend to breed groupthink, which doesn't make for very interesting reading.

 

Generalists are fine. Generalists who wear their ignorance on a particular subject as some sort of badge of honour are not. Maybe it comes down to learning something new scares them.

 

Journalism is a demanding discipline. If you don't make demands on yourself, you'll fail no matter what approach you take.

 

Indeed, this is a danger. But I think it's a danger to be monitored, not one that favors the eradication of specialists. I don't want Mel Kiper writing about NASCAR, and neither do you.

 

I have not come away with a feeling Simmons knows a lot, or even understands sports.
He has a childlike comprehension of a great many things.

 

Simmons can do that as long as you don't expect him to be factual. His erroneous "recollection" of events has been proven out many many times over the years, including in several prominent instances in his world-famous book that he researched exhaustively.

If Simmons were Reilly, the Internet would never let him off the mat for that. But he's Simmons and he's the counterculture hero, so everyone lets it slide.

 

That's a good point. Simmons reminds me of the 10-year-old who memorized the stats on the back of all his baseball cards or can recite the previous year's batting average or ERA of every player in the American League. Knows plenty of facts, but that doesn't mean I want to read his take on them.

I think what makes a columnist -- and forgive me for being redundant because I know I've said this before -- is reporting. Knowing stuff off the top of your head is great, but being able to report and dig enough to find out how things work and why they happen is much more important. You can always look up facts, but if you can report, you can find out a lot more.