Why the KC Star shines

Like many of you, I read just about all of the national newspapers daily -- from coast-to-coast. And I'm amazed, just amazed, that the small-market KC Star wipes the floor with the bigger market papers (such as the Sun-Times, the Free Press, and probably even the Dallas Morning News) ...

To me, the reason is balance.

They've got two outstanding columnists -- Whitlock and Posnanski. It is refreshing to see them both on the front page of the sports section. Why? Because they are going to get two completely different reactions out of you.

Whitlock's column will make you angry, pissed, annoyed ... or, it will make you look at something from a different perspective. It will challenge "popular belief." It will make you think. Then, it will make you discuss!

Posnanski's column will probably make you laugh, or in some cases, cry! He's an unbelievable writer, and after reading his columns I find myself saying, "oh yeah ... why didn't I think of that?" Sometimes he makes you realize something that should seem so simple!

Regardless, the tone of these two guys has perfect balance. Whitlock (more often than not) is negative; always looking for something to bash. Posnanski is always trying to find light at the end of the tunnel. A glimmer of hope  (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/columnists/joe_posnanski/14249218.htm.)

The rest of the staff, from Jeffrey Flanagan to Blair Kerkhoff, to a pair of exceptional beat writers (Bob Dutton and Adam Teicher) -- aren't necessarily GREAT writers, but they are GREAT reporters. And in my opinion, that's one of the problems we have in the sports media today. The writers do a heck of a job writing, but where's the reporting? Why are we always looking for more after reading the column/article? Why are we always stuck saying, "so what?"

Anyways, that's just my take. I love the LA Times and the Washington Post ... I do enjoy some of the writers at the Sun-Times and the Philly Enquirer. But again, I don't see a whole lot of balance at many of the national papers today. I see too many Jay Mariotti's who try to put themselve in the public spotlight, or try to self-promote or just attack something till it's dead in the face. To me, any sports section will only be as good as the lead columnists. I think KC has two of the best.

just my opinion.

 

Thanks for checking in, Mike Fannin.

Seriously, I agree that KC has a really solid section although their 10-day epic on the Big 12 At 10 left a little to be desired.

 

estreet, you mentioned their Big 12 series. Maybe it wasn't a grand slam, but the fact is that this paper thinks of those kinds of projects and carries them out. I suggest things like that at my shop and I get blank stares from everyone. Another reason I am, for the first time, seriously considering an eventual move into the management sector. I see too many SEs that don't push their sections to the heights that Fannin does. Too many that don't seem to have a vision beyond the next day's paper. KC has a vision.

 

If you think kicking the asses of the Sun-Times and the Free Press is an accomplishment, then you should drink a little. [/halftomcruise]

 

Jesus Christ, another KC lovefest thread? Go ahead, fire away. I'm sure there's enough room for everyone to climb inside Mike Fannin's bunghole. Dig in. :-*

 

how small-market is KC?

 

I admire the hell out of the Star. Writers get to write, and as cliched as it sounds, it seems they're put in a position to flourish and succeed.

 

What I see are first-rate columnists on the wire every night, what looks to be solid game coverage of big events.

What I don't know, because I never see a full edition, is just as important to me -- do they do the details right? Is there something for everyone? Correct balance of agate versus copy? Depth of coverage of lesser events?

Before I make an overall judgment, I'd have to know that.

 

...

 

What, precisely, has the Star done in the last few years that qualifies as hard-hitting journalism? The Latin American baseball stuff was nice, but hardly hard-hitting. The Royals have been monstrous, but outside Whitlock's sarcasm and Pos' love letters and "he's nice but he must go" stances, I can't recall anything. I remember a long while back when Steve Rock was sticking it hard to the NCAA every week, but he's not there anymore.

I say this not to be snarky. I really want to know ... what has the Star done that puts in on par with BALCO or Diploma mills or the like?

 

Look, I could give a damn about the hard-hitting shit. Everyone else can get on the soapbox, cry for more investigative stuff. It

All I know is Poz has kind of considered the best columnist on this board, he's won his share of awards, and Wright had his fair share of kick-ass takeout features. And Jason's columns stir up so much emotion, we spend pages upon pages ranting about what he wrote (sign of a good columnist).

For me, that gives the Star all the cred it needs.

 

In all fairness, we would spend hours and hours talking about any columnist who would come here with his/her real name and talk about him/herself constantly. That said, the Star does some decent stuff. Their design is overrated, and their Missouri U. coverage is very average ([/fanboy]). And I don't know if this is still the case, but they used to get a ton of space. They do have some nice stories (not referring to the one where no attempt was made to talk to the subject), and try some different things. They do totally smash the Post-Dispatch, quality-wise.