1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The invasion of the sports section

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by TyWebb, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    In three-part harmony.
     
  2. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    I run masturbation stories every time I run a submitted photo from some youth travel club.

    If you don't run it in sports because you don't think it qualifies, and people miss said story because they looked for it in sports, then you're not serving your readers. It's not running agate from the house show, it's a story that, once it plays out, could have a pretty significant (if indirect) impact on legitimate sports, particularly since everyone's focusing on the steroids element.

    One major paper i know of had nothing on Benoit the day after it happened. Sports didn't want it and news didn't want it. So one of the biggest stories of the week was completely booted on the first day.
     
  3. JBHawkEye

    JBHawkEye Well-Known Member

    MM is right.

    I ran the first-day Benoit story as a rail item. We ran a follow-up the next day, when the bizarre details began emerging. And, over the weekend, we ran the AP feature on the number of pro wrestling deaths with the sidebar on steroid usage.

    It's a story people are interested in reading, because of all of the angles (steroid use, etc.)

    But, are we going to run WrestleMania results or house show results? No.
     
  4. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    And that's what you can end up with when there's too much bellyaching and self-righteousness about how one section or another is above running certain stories. Competitive eating and poker belong in sports, because people expect to find them there. I don't want to read about either one, but they are on ESPN, so readers would assume they fall under the sports banner, right or wrong.

    Right or wrong, readers would expect to find Benoit in sports. It's entertainment, sure, but it's based on a legitimate sport. And the steroids angle cements the fact readers would expect to find the benoit story in sports, where steroids have become a massive, ongoing story thanks to Barry, BALCO and biking.

    It's not up to us to deliberately set out to make some point when it comes to this stuff. When we start arguing that things readers look for in sports "aren't sports!!!!!!!!" then we're doing a disservice to our readers, along the lines of ignoring or minimizing coverage of hockey, MMA and soccer just because WE don't happen to be big fans.

    I have said this many times to co-workers and bosses, but it bears repeating: Just because YOU don't care and think it merits coverage, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of readers who disagree. And just because we might not think these things are "sports", many readers do.
     
  5. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    So you surrender editorial direction of your sports section to the pandering shitheads at ESPN. Sorry, not me.

    The Benoit story is a minor national wire story. Competitive eating belongs way at the bottom of the "weird nooz of the world" briefs column, right above the cat driving the golf cart into the swimming pool. Poker belongs nowhere in any newspaper anywhere.
     
  6. Norrin Radd

    Norrin Radd New Member

    Not what I said. But hey, any chance to take a shot at ESPN.

    I said readers expect to find it a certain place. Yes, because of ESPN. The reason readers seek it a certain place means nothing compared to the fact they will look for it in sports.

    Is it important to make this minor concession to our readers and put in things that might qualify as fringe sports, while always making sure we don't get carried away?

    Or is it better to beat our breasts saying "ESPN Sucks!!!!" and bury or ignore stories readers find interesting?
     
  7. Diabeetus

    Diabeetus Active Member

    I'm with Norrin on this one. I hate the wwl as much as everyone else, but people expect to read about those types of things in the sports section. If your paper's doing well enough that you can piss on the readers, by all means, congrats and keep up the stance.
     
  8. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    If Sue Bird killed her husband and child before hanging herself, and police found steroids at the home, and dozens of WNBA and women's basketball players were dying before 45, would you call it a "minor national wire story"?
     
  9. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    Pro wrestling is, of course, not a sport. But given what they do, it bears a lot more resemblance to legitimate sport than does a drama or sitcom about sports. And most of the sidebars are at least indirectly sports-related: the heightened scrutiny of steroids and those who use them, the impact on sports like bodybuilding and weightlifting, how it affects those looking to cross over from legitimate sport (like Kurt Angle or Shelton Benjamin), what if anything it does good or bad for MMA.

    The WNBA comparison was for Starman's benefit, since he's a rather strong advocate of the league if I'm remebering right.

    But no, there should be little debate about the story's legitimacy as news. Quibble with what section should run it, but not whether it should be in the paper.
     
  10. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Good point there, MM. If this had happened to a performer in nearly any other medium -- an actor on a regular TV show, a writer, or a singer -- there'd be little doubt it was news. Granted, we wouldn't be having the sports or news arguments, but the news value itself wouldn't be questioned. Even if this had happened to some random family in Georgia, it'd probably be in the news for a few days.

    So why is the news value in this case being questioned so harshly? My take is, it's a bit of professional snobbery. There are some people who look down their noses at pro wrestling so much that it clouds their judgment. Their attitude is, "That stuff's for morons and losers," without realizing that those same morons and losers buy papers too. And because of that attitude, they fail to see the dozens of sidebars and features that DO have plenty of legitimate news value and DO directly relate to sports.
     
  11. Terence Mann

    Terence Mann Member

    I fail to see how Chris Benoit directly relates to sports.
     
  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    If anyone thinks that by keeping these three stories out of the sports section and thereby out of the paper (or maybe relegated to some brief) is a victory, I think that's an example of why newspapers are becoming dinosaurs.

    The wrestling story is news. People are interested.

    The Duke lacrosse/Nifong story is huge news.

    The hot dog guys is extremely well known. There are plenty of 9-year-old kids out there who know who he is.

    I don't see a lot of "Where can we best serve the reader?" in any of the discussions here. It's all where it should or shouldn't go.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page