Why is most sportswriting so bad?

I'm not educated enough to do other things. At least not things that pay more money. And I like the job, anyway.

Who said I wasn't working hard? I work damn hard. Just not on my writing.

 

Well, for one thing, a lack of access, especially at the NFL/NBA/MLB level, has made it worse. Some athletes, quite good ones, lives such narrow, driven lives that, although you're compelled to write about them, there simply isn't that much to write. And they're less willing to talk, advised as they are by PR folks to keep it as bland and boring as possible.

Talk radio doesn't help. If a player says two words out of turn, it'll be examined with a microscope for hours on the radio the following day. That's pressure on them. And it makes life tougher for writers. IMO, writers spend too much of their on talk radio, too. I believe that there's a limit to creativity - and even a limit to how much you can dedicate to a minor subject like a game preview - so if you're wasting a half-hour of your thoughts talking about it with some radio guy, you've not only burned off some of your motivation for writing the piece in the first place - which is to examine the issue in your own mind as it pours onto the computer screen - but some of the creativity, too. I have saying that I suppose is half true: Don't call on the muse in regular conversation unless you're picking up a girl or chatting with dear friends or family members you trust. Save it for your writing - of any kind. It has more impact there anyway.

For two, most sporting events now occur at night - even many college games - and the deadline is ever-tightening. TV makes everything longer, too.

On a larger scale, I trace recent problems back newspapers (and magazines) feeling the constant pressure to predict/react to the TV/Internet market for stories, rather than finding and crafting good stories. Good material tends to inspire good writing - or at least better writing than the norm. And by material I mean quotes, anecdotes, observations. Not merely the "storyline."

You could talk about for days, really.

 

There is no one answer, but hundreds of factors. Some:

1. Earlier Deadlines - Thirty years ago there were actually PM papers. And I'd be willing to bet most AM papers had later deadlines. More time to write generally equals better writing. Gammons' Game Story from Game 6 of the 1975 World Series is often hailed as one of the best pieces of deadline baseball writing. The game ended at 12:38 a.m., and I've read where Gammons said he had 22 minutes to write the story. Maybe he'd still have a 1 a.m. deadline today, but I know that at a lot of papers he wouldn't.

2. Later start times - Sticking on the same theme of the World Series -- until recently those games have been starting around 8:30.

3. Multi-tasking - Someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating...We ask reporters to do so much before they actually write "their piece" that of course that piece is going to suffer. First, count how many words most reporters are writing on a daily basis, when you combine blog posts and twitter posts with whatever actually appears in the paper. Next, consider how much more information a reporter needs to process today, from internet rumors to twitter messages to emails and text messages.

4. Less access - Check out Pat Jordan's work and then ask yourself if he'd be able to do any of it today...The best writing is three-dimensional, and more and more sports has turned into a two-dimensional spectacle.

5. Less emphasis from above - When's the last time anybody had an editor tell them, "Hey - make sure you write the crap out of this one."

6. Thinner staffs - One of the biggest accomplices to a good piece of writing is a line editor who A) Cares about the craft, and B) Has the time to employ that caring into the editing of a piece. I'd be we're seeing less of those people thanks to layoffs. And, of course, with thinner reporting staffs, more is being asked of each individual writer, which impacts the quality of any individual piece of work (see No. 3).

7. Dot Coms - Thirty years ago, a guy like Gammons would probably still be writing regularly for the Globe. Now, his primary job is on TV. A guy like Will Leitch, who has some ability, would've been forced to conform rather than having the ability to run out and start his own blog. Rick Reilly wouldn't have turned himself into a non-factor at ESPN.com. And on, and on, and on. Back then, to write and report was the thing. If they came up in this day and time, Red Smith would be shouting at Shirley Povich on Around the Horn, and Mike Royko would be blogging and hosting a talk radio show.

That said. . .

There is still plenty of good writing out there. Problem is, a lot of it gets lost beneath the never-ending stream of information available now on the internet, and in the psychological rubble of our industry. Take this site, for instance -- What first attracted me here years ago were the discussions about craft and the links to great sports writing that dominated the board. Now, nine out of 10 threads has to do with how shitty everything is.

 

Seriously, just 10 years ago, a full day would have been covering a game, filing a deadline story and writethru and maybe a notebook.

Now it's all that, plus blogging, tweeting, videos, etc., etc.

Tough to balance all that and still churn out great prose.

 

At the smaller papers, it's even tougher, since you might have to do the pages that day as well. At least I haven't heard anything about doing video since no one would watch it anyway.

 

Man, you need a hug or something. I can see his point and that's his opinion. Respect it. There's no right or wrong answer.
The incentive to want to succeed in this business gets smaller every day. It's tough to be inspired with the constraints and pressures being put on by management.
For me, the inspiration is that I'm working, doing something that many of my friends no longer can say they are doing. Making a paycheck and providing for my family is first and foremost.

 

I'm surprised at the drivel that comes from a "hall of fame voter".

 

You are so lost. Respect the man's opinion. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing but you bring up children and what have you. Just respect his opinion. Don't be so close-minded.

 

Once again, you're right, I'm completely lost. You have set me straight Droots. For that, I thank you.

 

What is your malfunction? Now you're calling me names? Look I'm just trying to school you on a few things. Obviously, you can't handle the course. Take care of yourself and may God bless you and yours.

 

Let's be honest: That's a pretty easy damn day by 99.9% of the world's work standards.

 

God bless Brother Boots, I appreciate your wisdom and knowledge. Please keep educating the masses.