Who Should Cover the World Series?

From sportsjournalism.org, Jason Fry argues that there are too many reporters at the WS (and other national events) at a time when newspapers can't afford the luxury:

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/who-should-cover-the-world-series/

 

If you read down the comments, Jason Fry responds to some skeptics by stating flatly that baseball writers around the country should write about the World Series by watching it on TV.

He pretty much lost me there. If a paper wants to save money by using alternative stories from AP, a member paper in its chain or some syndicate, that's a defensible approach. It's an expensive assignment and one with little, if any, tangible competitive edge. But having your people watch and react from TV? That's happily turning them into the worst cliched sort of bloggers. Nothing will cause me to cancel my subscription and avoid your Web site faster.

 

This response basically covers it. If you can't provide value to your readers through your presence, fine, that's a question worth asking yourself. Use wire or syndicated stuff. Writing off the TV is an insult to your readers.

 

Maybe those whose shops made them write off TV should file an expense report for their cable/satellite bill ...

 

When watching on TV, I notice things that those watching from the stands or press box don't notice. I remember thinking about this very notion while watching a game. There was one game where Nick Swisher stepped into the box and looked up in the air for an instant. What was he looking at? Is this part of a ritual? Was he sneaking a glance at outfield positioning?

An ideal would be to have the ability to watch on TV and have locker-room access afterwards. Of course, you can't get that from your living room.

 

Okay, you've noticed something interesting on TV. Now what? You're home on the couch, you can't ask anyone. In fact, millions of others have seen the same broadcast, how are you going to add to their experience? (btw, Swisher looks up in tribute to his grandparents.)

 

Addressed in my second paragraph.

 

TSP, There are monitors in the press box. You can see everything--including the endless replays--on TV that the guy sitting in his living room can see. And you then have post-game access.
You also can see hundreds of things -- defensive alignments, etc. -- from the press box that you'll never see on TV.

 

Yep, it works both ways.

And as with everything else, it comes back to are you getting value for the cost? It's as silly to say there are too many reporters at the WS as it is to say there are too few. There is no X number which is the ideal. If you can afford to send someone and it helps you sell newspapers, send them. If not, don't.

If their papers can't send Mike Vaccaro or Joe Posnanski to the WS, would you rather read something by them where they got most of the info from watching on TV or would you rather not read anything at all by them?

 

I'd rather read something by someone who was at the game, not at home watching on TV.

 

Your second paragraph basically makes the first paragraph pointless. Of course it would be great for everyone to watch at home and then jump into the clubhouse, but that's not happening, so what's the advantage to watching at home? Especially, as spnited points out, reporters at the game can also see the broadcast and jump into the clubhouse?

If I watched a game on TV, and you watched the same broadcast at home, what in the world are you going to tell me that I didn't see myself?

 

The writer seems to be operating under an assumption that every expense at every newspaper hasn't already been scrutinized to death over the past few years. I have to assume that the newspapers still covering the World Series, Super Bowl, Kentucky Derby, Olympics and other major events have made compelling arguments for it when the editors sat in a room with those who set and control the budgets. Does Jason Fry believe the expense of sending two people to the World Series somehow escaped notice from the beancounters and that he, an outsider, has stumbled upon a gigantic waste of money that would have gone undetected if not for his keen insights?

More likely these editors fought hard for the ability to continue covering major events, arguing successfully with the executive editor and publisher that readership surveys indicate the locals do not consider themeselves residents of a backwater shithole but rather of inhabitants of a cosmopolitan city that demands more of its newspaper than rip-and-read from major national events. And that the management of those papers believe their sports staff is among the nation's best and can deliver better World Series coverage than can be gleaned from the wires.

Every newsroom has had to justify every fucking paper clip already and they've all made their cuts. These papers obviously chose to cut something else instead. In my opinion, they chose correctly. I've never been anywhere that I didn't believe our writers and desk--pound for pound according to the space and deadline--couldn't deliver the best big-event coverage for our readers. If you don't believe that, well, you really need to learn how to fake orgasm and pretend you believe it. Otherwise, game over.