Who Should Cover the World Series?

Never covered the world series, but I can relate to attending the event and still watching it on TV. Practically every reporter who covers the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas does this. They let about three guys a night actually sit on the announcers platform just outside the arena. Everybody else watches the closed-circuit feed in the basement of Thomas and Mack. And almost no media get locker room access there. Everyone is brought to the media room for interviews. A general media pass gets you to the press room and nowhere else.

And that's why I despise covering such events. Give me a small-time event where reporters are allowed to roam free any day. Forget the cost, covering big events such as the world series is just a royal pain more often than not.

 

I think it really depends on what city you're in.

I would argue that in 75 percent of cities that have a pro team, there is more interest in the regular-season NFL than there is in the World Series unless the local team makes it.

If I'm a sports editor, the World Series would be pretty far down on the list of national events to cover unless the local team makes it.

Super Bowl? Absolutely...

Final Four? No question...

World Series... Meh...

 

No, it's not.
100s of other people are covering the WS, many of which you can use in your paper.
Nobody else is covering that HS football game in your backyard.

Not even close to the same.

 

Not sure who this is directed to, but in the case of the Detroit hockey playoffs, no and yes.

 

We do that for most road games.

 

In the vast majority of cases, yes.

 

Don't a lot of PGA Tour writers watch the tournament from the press tent?

 

The people who are covering the World Series are primarily baseball writers year-round. If the paper doesn't send them to the World Series, they start using their comp time a couple weeks early, that's all. If they do not go to the World Series, they will not be covering a high school football game, they will not be pulling a desk shift, they will not be washing the publisher's car. They either will go on vacation or they will be working the phones if there is any contract/transactions news involving the MLB team that they usually cover (which they can also do while covering the World Series). All you are really saving is the travel expenses.

 

Lupica was ahead of his time.

 

I'd loop back to your opening sentence: Depends what city you're in. I've lived and worked in cities where the Final Four would have been a low priority. Sure, people have their brackets and care about the outcomes, but they really don't have much interest in reading some profile of a future insurance salesman playing small forward for Boola Boola U.. There are a lot of towns where the pro coverage -- NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL -- comes first.

Not disagreeing, other than to amend it to "Final Four? Some question..."

 

Frank:
I wasn't really arguing for or against the issue at hand.
I was addressing SixToe's (faulty, IMO) comparison of saving money by not sending a writer to the WS to saving money by not sending a writer to a HS football game.

 

Justifying the cost of covering a major event has several components, in my view. The most obvious is the live coverage from a local perspective. The least persuasive (to those who must balance the budget, at least) is probably morale. But one element that is often overlooked is networking. Sending someone to the World Series or the Super Bowl or the Final Four or the Masters is an opportunity to expand your contacts, to get face time with newsmakers who may be more likely to return your phone call and to develop stronger ties to writers in other towns who sometimes stumble upon stories that might be of more interest in your market than theirs.
Case in point: When Tony Perez returned to the Reds late in his career, I was able to break that story in Cincinnati because of a tip I received from a writer friend from Philadelphia, a guy I would not have known had I been covering events from in front of my television set.
Red Smith's advice was: "Be there." Woody Allen's analysis was that: "Ninety percent of life is just showing up." Both of them were right.