Wilbon: "There's not as much good [sportswriting] as there used to be."

It's not quite the same issue, but close enough. In Esquire, Stephen Marche talks about this being the golden age for writers (opportunities, etc.), but also talks about the actual writing.

http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/writing-careers-1212

 

I think there's some truth to what everybody's been saying, including Wilbon. Deford, Kindred and Wiley have given way to the likes of Lake, Price and a slew of great writers coming up to supplant the old guard. Mizzou's point about there not being enough features in newspapers is definitely true, along with Wilbon's point about some writers not watching the game at all. I've been in an MLB press box and seen a writer playing on Facebook during a game. And I was just about to post the Esquire story as well.

 

That kind of stuff is more like technical writing. Certainly exploratory, but I wouldn't call it great writing. Heck, Silver, the rock star of that genre, I don't think many would call his writing catchy, or nearly as transcendent as his number-crunching is.

Over all, I'm sure there's a lot of great writing out there, but in this ADD era, it probably doesn't step to the forefront as readily.

 

What year did Alan Richman write "The Death of Sportswriting"? Was it 1991?

 

I'll agree regarding the space constrictions of newspapers.

It's a big reason that I walked away.

It might have been the right decision for the industry to shrink stories and emphasize short pieces and social media. But it wasn't what I wanted to do and didn't play to my strengths.

I'm middling, and didn't want to work at a newspaper any more. Can't imagine why an actual, bona fide star would.

 

Completely agree. It's not an indictment on the writers, but the industry. Staffs are smaller and there's therefore less time to write and report the highly regarded long-form narratives. Newspapers typically don't have the space to run those kind of stories nowadays anyway, which leads to a smaller number of them in general.

 

Yes, 1991.

And you know the only place I could find it just now? SF's blog. Still here with us.

http://sportswritingediting.blogspot.com/2005/09/death-of-sportswriting_22.html

 

If this is the golden age, then this business is definitely in trouble. Too many "columnists" are more interested in 'tweeting" and reporting wrong information in an effort to be first. Too many guys are given the title columnist who haven't paid their dues on the front lines learning how to report and write and knowing the difference of when to use which talent. Wilbon is correct in his assessment.

 

There's more great sports writing in more places than ever. Mr. Wilbon may not know where to look for it. Or, frankly, how to judge it. He may have very narrow tastes.

That said, there's less good editing than at any time in human history.

 

On the other hand, Mark Twain was a terrible Tweeter.

 

Mark Twain was a GREAT Tweeter. That guy was working brilliant with a 140-character limit before anybody knew it existed. You could set up a Twitter feed of either Mark Twain or Ben Franklin, posting only things they wrote 100-200 years ago, and draw a million followers and it would be the most relevant Twitter feed in the world today.

 

How can there be less of it?

Any one - ANYONE! - with a blog or messageboard handle can project their writing to thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people in seconds.
See the Bloggess... Simmons, hell, even our own Verse.
These writers no longer need newspapers or magazines. They aren't limited by the subscription and circulation area. They aren't limited by editors - which is both good and bad.
In 1985 I couldn't read Ray Ratto, Lewis Grizzard, Kindred, Kornheiser and Lupica without subscriptions. Now .. I can read them all and a dozen more up and comers and already established writers, feature writers, essayists and columnists, some of whom are cleverly disguised as bloggers!
The landscape has changed. Writing has changed.
It has only gotten smaller through the lens that Wilbon is looking through.
To me, it has expanded. Exploded.