Trampling on the grave of newspapers

This was pretty much my reaction. I had other thoughts, but I'm not going down that road again. We've covered the rest so many times that I think I have a statistical breakdown of the arguments somewhere.

 

No doubt it has value -- for a narrow audience.

I like to cook. I have a book on the chemistry of cooking. A lot of interesting stuff in there about what happens chemically when, say, salt or heat is applied. Some of it dispells conventional myths, such as alcohol cooking off (not very much) or marinade doing anything to meat that could be called an improvement. It's interesting to read, once in a while, a little at a time.

But ... if you are putting out a food section for a newspaper audience of a couple hundred thousand or even a mass-market Web site, which is going to be more popular with most people -- coverage that appeals to their sensory experiences, or one that produces regular dissertations on enzymes and the cell structures of dead animals? I think the former.

Yup, I bought that book. That doesn't mean I want a steady diet of that kind of writing.

Food is meant to be enjoyed, without beating all the fun out of it. So is baseball.

Which is, by the way, why I don't think the game story ought to be dead. But a good game story, not How They Scored with first names added to it and a few quotes sprinkled in.

It's like a restaurant review. I'd like to know whether I'm likely to have a good time there. I'm not really interested in whether the writer can play Sherlock Holmes and identify every herb the chef used in his top-secret sauce recipe.

 

I don't want to read that stuff in my paper either.

But they're not writing it for the general audience, they have a very specific demographic they're targeting: stat geeks, GMs, coaches. And to minimize or make light of the importance of those stats to the select few that need and can intelligently use that info is short-sighted.

And that's why there will always be a market for someone who can intelligently analyze baseball in a way the average fan enjoys and can understand. Generally, that comes from a good beat writer, who generlaly is employed by a daily newspaper.

 

No.

I'm sure you've heard this old editors' maxim: "Show, don't tell."

I'm sick of hearing how IMPORTANT and VITAL we are, even if it is the truth. Too many corporate blowhards are trying to convince the public of that every day. But then they fail to give their journalists the resources they need to be important and vital. Seventy-five percent of the content in my paper has become wire copy; it's kind of pathetic, actually. We need to show people why we're important, and quit telling them how much they should care. Every day, we have to show it. That's on us, not the readers.

And right now -- regardless of all the other problems that the industry is having -- we're not doing enough of that.

 

Baseball and cooking... I like that analogy Frank...

 

I believe in a form of karma.

Any who celebrates a job loss, death in the family/hardship and/or personal setback will deal with similar - and possibly worse - struggles down the line.

 

Does it make you happy that the universe works that way?

 

So true.

 

Good analogy.

The original stories talks about the glory of being able to educate yourself about baseball for free ... well, yeah, if your interest in baseball is about that very specific school of thought. The sabermetric community is interested in studying about the studies of other studies, and trying to feel smart by proving their formula shows something. It's only tangenically about baseball.

I like actual baseball. The game on the field. Being able to read about the people, the game, what's going on with the team, what people are thinking, that's what interests me. And that's the work being done by reporters, not hobby mathematicians.