Wall Street Journal Sports Page

Just read a blurb on Romenesko about the WSJ sports page, which is promoting itself as "the thinking man's sports site," (cue red flag for using the phrase "thinking man's" anything).

So I go to the home page - usual smorgasbord of of stuff, handsome enough, about fifteen stories or so promoted.

...And not a single byline. Words minus authorship - no no no no no. This thinking man thinks the WSJ sports page needs to realize somebody writes every word. Crap like that pisses me off - when I open a magazine that fails to give the author a byline in the table of contents, I close it.

 

Putting the call out for WSJ writers and reporters to contribute to a sports page? That breathes life into the worst notions the news and business types in our industry have about the "toy department."

"Oh, sure, any one of us can write about sports. We're journalists and we love sports!"

This WSJ Sports Page won't get off the ground if it continues to run navel-gazing like this:

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/article/SB121157318167718071.html?mod=Sports90_5

(Some staffer's meanderings about his love of former Piston Vinnie (Microwave) Johnson).

That place ought to hire a handful of legit sports journalists: A couple of columnists and a national writer or two for each sport. Then I'd take it more seriously.

 

i thought they did hire a few actual sports writers. didn't they hire adam thompson, formerly of the denver post and ames paper?

 

They sure did hire Adam Thompson, who is as good a reporter as they come.

(I'm not Adam.)

 

They hired Thompson at least two years ago. Long before Murdoch and his peeps came in, long before this level of sports ambition. I don't think Thompson and Darren Everson were hired with the idea that they would be the essence of a beefed-up sports section at the WSJ. How they functioned in their first couple years there -- as sports biz writers -- seemed like the original plan.

Just saying that having newsside and finance reporters wax about their fanboy faves isn't going to cut it. I have subscribed for years, but if that's what they give me as their best effort at a sports page/section, then they've seen their last dime from me.

 

i don't know why someone thought there are no bylines on the site, from what i can tell, they're all bylined (maybe you're thinking of the economist's sports section). i think they've put together some decent stories. it's not going to be a daily-style section, but just a collection of short takeouts, think pieces, etc. they had a decent one on the new mlb technology, pitch f/x, that measures the break of pitches.

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/article/SB121149546083915647.html?mod=sports

It's another resource for sports fans and writers who like to read, in my humble opinion. they're not re-inventing the wheel or anything.

 

Read closer: There are no bylines on the HOME PAGE, the table of contents equivalent.

 

It's not a per

It's not a perfect world man, sometimes you have to click on the headline.

 

I'm not Adam either, but he's outstanding.

 

It just shows disrepect man, for the writer, and for the writing, when design is valued above authorship.

 

I'll add to IE's point by saying that if you're going to position yourself as the "thinking man's" sports page, you need to assume that "thinking men" often choose what they read based on who wrote the piece as much as what's being written about.

There's also the fact that in not bylining the stories on that front page, you're not building any name recognition for your own stable of writers. Which is a big mistake.

 

So I guess the Economist isn't for the thinking man. I see the point, but I bet the WSJ readers a. have no idea who any of these writers are, and b. are more interested in stories than writers. "Hey, Adam Thompson wrote this story. A must-read!" Most of the stories are pretty quick hitters, it's not like they hired Tom Wolfe or Gay Talese.