Sports Loses Five at Deseret News

I understand your points IJAG, just don't necessarily agree.

For starters, the Deseret News is in a very competitive environment with the SL Tribune, the Ogden paper and the Provo paper (especially in its BYU coverage). The paper wants to have its own voice, and therefore, I have no problem with multiple columnists.

As for a national NBA writer, the Jazz are the only big-time game in town (not trying to slight the MLS with that statement). Therefore, SLC is big on its hoops, and I again have no problem with a writer who covers the NBA national beat and keeps those readers informed as to how things happening in the league affect the Jazz, and vice versa.

To me, having these types of positions is not a bloated staff. A bloated staff is having dozens upon dozens of editors and managers doing the same things. In this day and age, none of us should be complaining about a paper that actually chooses to put reporters/columnists out on the street. That is never a bad thing.

 

I've just never understood the idea of a national beat writer for a non-major metro. Talking about how the league activity is affecting the Jazz is kind of the job of the Jazz guy.

 

IJAG, your model is applying to more and more of the so-called major metros, too. The national beats are disappearing, at least those beyond the NFL and in some cases MLB.

That said, with the NBA and NHL beats, if you're going to cover them right, you're either going to need a reliable backup for your beat writer or you might as well have a national beat/backup guy to boost your coverage. If you have a bunch of pro teams, you can have the backup guy split his time between two sports. If you have only one or two big league teams, then they're more important -- relatively -- in your market and deserve the extra coverage.

 

It helps a lot with trade rumors involving the local team, there's another set of ears establishing contacts around the league.

The beat writer can concentrate on his team rather than lashing together a generic league notes column every Friday afternoon.

In many pro markets in the West and South, a lot of your readers are from somewhere else and might be NBA fans but not necessarily fans of the local team.

A lot of beat writers burn out on the travel and it's a way to keep their expertise while maybe cutting their travel in half.

 

Just because someone has the national NBA beat does not mean that's the only thing that person does. I assume most papers have an 'expert' on a smaller beat such as wrestling, soccer or even the national MLB stories. That person probably wears three or four other hats, too.

That's the case with the national NBA beat writers at both SLC papers.

 

All fair enough. I've never worked at a paper with a "national" writer, so it just seems foreign to me.

It apparently works there.

 

It's sad how quickly the business has brainwashed people to think so damn small. Sad.

 

Now it's simple: You just cut the burnt-out beat writer who would have handled the national beats. Cuts their travel, and their travel cost, by 100 percent. Their salaries, too.

Puts the fear of God into those longtime beat folks who might have thought about raising their hand for a different role, too. You can grind them into the ground while they cling for dear life to the jobs they have.

Good luck to the Deseret folks, both them staying and them being shown the door.

 

Who was the national NBA beat writer? If you're thinking it was Loren Jorgensen, he did one NBA roundup section a week and helped with the Jazz home games, plus cover the Arena team.

It amazes me what people complain about on this board. A paper has too many sports writers in this case or not enough to put out a decent product. What is "just right", Goldilocks?

 

Lots of people I like and respect here, but there's still something oddly perverse given the times we're living in about people coming into a thread like this and JUSTIFYING why a staff can afford to be smaller. I'd say for the most part as a group, we should be justifying why a staff should be bigger.

And with regard to Frank's post, I once was sports editor in a BUREAU that had a staff of 30 or so ... and for what we covered, we needed every damn one of them.

Depends on what you're trying to accomplish, what constitutes appropriate "full"
coverage and what your readers will accept -- or not.

 

A fair point, and I'm sorry if my post came across anything like that. And as I said, I don't know the paper or how things work there, or what the interest is in each thing.

If they're kicking ass with 20, let them have 20. But if the same amount of work could be done with 15 or 17, then that's more money to help those 15 or 17 do their jobs better.

 

Ah, I didn't mean it was mean, but any means. (I started to edit that, but it's a perfectly correct sentence.) I just thought it was odd, that's all.