The local paper needs the football club more than the football club needs the local paper

Attempts to report on "the nuances of things like team mood and subtle hints from the coaching staff" often result in more "dimestore analysis" than accurate journalism.

When fantasy players and gamblers, who have the most at stake, go searching for coverage that can give them an edge, my guess is that they spend a lot more time reading the material produced by so-called "shoe sniffing moron with . . . steady internet connection than they do traditional beat coverage. Want your analysis to stand out above the morons? Analyze better than the morons.

 

A bad driver doesn't become a good driver just because he bought a good car. Sure, people with access can and do produce lazy, derivative, uninspired coverage. But has anyone ever produced consistently good conventional coverage (not something niche like statistic-based analysis or snarky riffing) of something to which he or she has no access?

People who want to make money on sports are going to look for the source that gives them the most pertinent information. It may not always be the local rag, but it's going to rank higher than the slideshow for the crowdsourced fan site.

Part of what strengthens analysis is credibility, and the more you develop your bona fides by being onsite, the better your chances of establishing said credibility with readers and the targets of your coverage alike.

But there's more to life, and journalism, than analysis. Without access, you have to draw on your reputation and your ability to re-report. The former is finite and its absence hinders perception of the latter.

 

I'll respond more later, but there's a bottom-line point I'm circling about, and I want to get it out there:

I think we often overrate the value of access, and underrate the value of simply taking the time to follow a team closely, day-in and day-out. That value doesn't disappear when access is denied or surrendered.

I do think being at the games with a good vantage point is important, as well, and just as important or more important than access.

 

Who gives a damn about fantasy players and gamblers? Not mainstream journalism.

 

It's not that they are fantasy players and gamblers, per se. It's that because they are fantasy players and gamblers, they have a vested interest in obtaining the information that actually matters.

 

A person who is good at reporting doesn't really need access, or at least I always thought so. Access usually means reporters in a gang bang and all getting the same quotes and writing the same stories. A good reporter shouldn't be where all the other reporters are.

 

I think there's a key distinction here: Access isn't just about interviews. It's about being able to use all of your senses - especially your eyes - to observe and gather information. In the era of pack journalism, simply being part of the herd gathering quotes isn't going to differentiate your work from the rest that's being produced. But by being able to observe and communicate and gather as much information as possible is huge. NFL teams are more restrictive on how long you can observe practice; college programs are more restrictive on access to players (always through the SID, not always open locker rooms); Premier League teams significantly favor rights holders and don't have open locker rooms.

There are restrictions everywhere. But if you're at least in the building or on the grounds, you can begin to work at finding your way and still do quality reporting. In that sense, access is crucial. But if you're just following the pack, the access gets wasted.

 

I'd rather know what a guy does on the field, though, than whether the catcher and No. 2 starter appeared to be laughing together at lunch.

 

And I understand that developing sources away from the pack can be important, but I just don't know how important player sources are, really. They don't know which trades are coming down the pipe, for example.

I'm curious: How many reporters cultivate scouts as sources? That seems really vital. When I covered college football, I would find out more about the players I cover from NFL scouts than I did from the player, his coach, or his teammates.

 

You certainly need access to get a scout or an agent to talk to you.

 

I'd rather have a friendly relationship with the secretary/assistant/whatever than the coach any day.

A much deeper understanding of how things work will be the result.

No, you need to work at an outlet that people know.

Jay Farrar's Last Lanes basketball report dot com will not get the calls returned like Jay Farrar, ESPN will get returned.

I know from personal experience as a freelancer that being on assignment for the Wall Street Journal will get you into places that working at the local paper won't.

 

If you find a player who will talk bluntly about WHY things happened a certain way on the field, that's valuable - if they'll give you insight like, yeah, we sucked because player X doesn't know the playbook and kept doing the wrong thing out there. Or coach said to do Y and we all ignored him.

Not every player's that blunt obviously. And many player quotes suck, but that's what cultivating sources is about - finding the right guys and building the trust so that you get something actually insightful instead of cliche shit.