Shaughnessy: "We now have a bad connection"

That was freaking hilarious, especially considering who henry targeted with that comment.

 

Yeah, you do have to write about the stars. But it's reached the point of…sickness. Is Angie Jolie ever going to be as vulnerable as she was for John Richardson in that Esquire piece? Never again. Why? Because people follow her to refugee camps in<i>Africa</i>just to get a picture. Now, as a reporter, I guess I gotta choice: I can write some pointless lark about an evasive, secretive, thoroughly average actor like Jolie, full of ruminations and essay-like material because she didn't give a quote. I could write about Katie Holmes, with her looney tunes husband. Or I can go find an actor who's still beautiful, who will give me the time of day, and who actually has something to say. Like John Richardson did - when Jolie was still accessible.

You look, just as an example, at the treatment Donovan McNabb has received from the Philly and national media since, well, the Limbaugh incident. McNabb's generosity and good will toward the media has been completely abused. By everyone. This is, essentially, the kind of "star" you want. He's not Favre, but nobody is. Still - he tries not blow people off, tries to be honest, he hasn't been seduced by Belichickian double speak. And look at what the media's done to him. He's only the best quarterback in franchise history (better than Van Brocklin) and the minute an ass like Owens shows up in town, he's suddenly a choke artist in the Super Bowl, a flak for the team brass, a black guy who acts white (but gets too much credit because he's black), a control freak, a phony for doing soup ads. The media scoured the Eagles' roster trying to find a couple loudmouths who preferred T.O. to Donovan, found them, and blew it up. Then the NAACP weighed in…

If you're a guy like McNabb…would you grant anyone much access?

 

So don't speak to them. Speak to other parents.

Not wanting to talk to a paper - and saying so without being rude - is not a crime.

 

So let me get this straight - your argument is, essentially, that access doesn't matter?

I mean, everything you're saying is granted. Of course you find a way to get the story done anyhow. Of course you find another source. We all know that. But that doesn't change it being a pain in the ass. Or, many times, diminishing the final story.

I'm just not quite sure what your disagreement is here. If your stance is that access makes no difference in quality of work and quality of reporting, not to mention a journalist's quality of life, you're just flat-out wrong.

 

Is this true? (The daughter/job part, not the fraud part).

If so, then the Globe should be ashamed of itself and outed to the Poynter police of the world. That paper has sold its soul to let writers run around to TV and radio gigs, to where it shows up badly in the quality of their writing. But to allow a clear ethical breach like this by one of its "stars" makes that place suitable for the Dick Cheney White House.

 

Heard, from multiple sources.

 

If they do...whose fault is it? The average Joe only has one because of the great mistrust of the

I'm saying that sometimes journalists dwell a little too much on the pains in the ass than they do hustling for real news - which is out there if they want it.

If Shaughnessy needs to know who Kevin Garnett prank calls on the road, or which barbecue sauce he prefers, to be an effective columnist...well, he doesn't, does he, because he <i>is</i> an effective columnist. So we'll just chalk this particular column up to laziness and general apathy. Shaughnessy wasn't moved enough by the on-court proceedings, and he didn't feel a need to hustle a column, so he wrote a half-assed lament that ended with "eh, it's nobody's fault," which is two things:

1. A lie, because, I mean, it is somebody's fault that there's no access.
2. A confession that he had to file <i>something</i>, so he dusted off some old Celtics tales and called it wistfulness.

 

And plenty of people find it. But, I'm sorry, it's silly that Rashon Rondo has a publicist. And not everyone feels like putting up with stuff like that after a while. Maybe that says more about my character than it does about Rashon Rondo. Maybe I don't have thick enough skin. Maybe I don't feel like "hustling." But it is what it is.

 

Absolutely true.

 

And for clarification's sake, there are two reasons I see for wanting to cover big-time sports:

1. Usually higher pay than preps and other lower levels
2. Getting to travel

I suppose the wide audience you can gain is probably worth being a third reason. Sometimes.

Rubbing elbows with celebrities is about 800 on this list. It merely gets old being treated like an untrusted outsider so often because it's human nature to want to connect.

 

Alma & Chris,

With all due respect (and in this case I do mean that)... let me set the scene for you.

Take MLB - used to be that if you wanted to work an angle or get an interview, you simply grabbed the player as he waited to take bp. Or in the clubhouse. Or maybe you mentioned to the flack what you were doing, and the flack helped facilitate a time to catch the player.

Today, at least in the MLB cities I've worked, that kind of thing is almost unheard of.

Take the MLB clubhouse for example. You walk in and see all the journalists in a huddle talking to each other. Sometimes you'll see them interviewing each other - ridiculous.

The players are doing their own thing. I once asked someone why nobody was talking to the players. "They don't talk," I was told.

"So if I went up to xx and asked him a question, he wouldn't answer it?"

"You can try, but no, he wouldn't."

Players tend not to talk at bp, either. Ok, you'll see a Jeter talking to a Gammons... but Gammons is a celeb in his own right -- he's one of them.

I've had players turn me down for interviews while they're doing NOTHING in the clubhouse. I've had people like... I dunno guys in their rookie year say, "Ok, but make it quick."

And then the second a you get a minute with a guy, you are surrounded -- 20 tape recorders engulf you.

Don't get me started on the flacks, aka handlers. They used to be facilitators. They are now pests. Their only job is to be a pest. To hamper you from doing your job. It would be one thing if they didn't help - that would be fine. But they are there to be a pest to you.

Getting a different story (aka different from the pack) under these conditions is ... to say it's a grind is an understatment. It's boderline impossible. And that's the bottom line, here. Not wanting to know Garnett's BBQ choice-- just simply wanting a fresh angle.

And somebody explain to me how/why 'media relations' has changed so much since 2000?