Sandomir: Press Boxes Become an Afterthought...

Wow. Have you covered events before? You really think where you sit has no bearing on the information you can obtain?
Sitting closer to the floor in basketball, where you can hear what is said, see the bench, etc., has no value?
Being closer to the ball field and being able to see the curve of the ball, or whether a shot is truly fair or foul, has no value?
Being stuck sitting in the corner, with an angled view, where people are constantly blocking your view, doesn't negatively affect what you can observe?

 

I have covered plenty of events. And no game stories I read show that the reporters with the supposed great views are using them to their advantage. You can leave the garbage about seeing if the ball is fair or foul or how it curves out of the discussion -- everyone uses instant replay to judge that over and over again.

 

I suppose there is instant replay available at every game?
I know for a fact my stories are better when I know more about what is going on.
I know more about what is going on if I'm in a position to observe more.
This isn't rocket science.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm really trying to avoid questioning your intelligence, but you really don't seem to understand the way I used that phrase. Of course, you haven't appeared to understand anything I've said, so...

 

Baseball writers should not be whining about where they have to sit. That complaint should be the exclusive purview of hockey writers.

As an aside: I played outfield in college, and I still prefer that angle when watching a game. In a behind-the-plate press box, almost all the action is going away from you. In the outfield, more of it is coming toward you.

One last thought: Let's see a show of hands of those here who think this is Mariotti's fault ...

 

Very well put...

 

I understood perfectly.

 

Ok. Do you agree with me that more ability to observe has SOME effect on coverage?
If not, you're welcome to that opinion, but I'd imagine the vast majority of this board will disagree with you.

 

Sports franchises, and college sports information departments, have every intention, very soon, of charging news organizations absolute top-freight ticket prices for press seating. Charging for meals, parking, etc was just the foot in the door of this process.

That will chase all but the largest outlets out of the building, which is just fine from their standpoint. If your organization isn't willing to shell out a couple hundred bucks to cover the game, use AP. Pay up or shove off -- that's the new mantra.

 

In baseball, I think it does matter. You can tell breaking pitches from behind the plate, and you don't get as good a view if you are up the line. I have heard announcers talk about the difference between home and road.

Why does it matter? Well, yeah, you can sell seats for premium prices. But there is also television viewership and people paying for jerseys. You want to have good stories. If a team/league isn't taken seriously by newspapers, there is a problem for team management.

As far as feeding the media, first of all there are a lot of guests and other people who eat that food. For the media, they aren't going to be there for two or three hours, they are going to be there for six hours. I remember Leonard Koppett writing, "it may be freeloading, but it isn't shameless freeloading." If I owned the team, I would want to keep the press from being hungry. It makes sense. Even negative publicity is better than no publicity.

 

There are plenty more little battles that are going to have to be lost along the way before you get to this reality.

You can't get from Point A to Point B so quickly.