1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Winners and losers concerning Favre coverage?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by bloggin, Aug 7, 2008.

  1. bloggin

    bloggin New Member

    Just wondering if anyone followed the Favre coverage close enough to figure out who got the scoop and who got it wrong? I can't get over this idea of national outlets having greater access than the daily beat writers.

    How do sports editors feel about beat writers citing national outlets/reporters in stories? I guess they have no choice when Favre won't return your call and Gruden won't comment.
  2. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't like it in my SE days but I also know it is a necessary evil sometimes.

    Have no clue on winners or losers. Didn't care enough about the story to follow it that closely. I should have - would have made a nice topic for my class this fall. Was it too much?
  3. SportySpice

    SportySpice Member

    Everyone's a loser on this, from the fans forced to see and hear breathless coverage of text messages to the staffers at ESPN forced to put it on the Web site by their superiors. Talked to a couple of people I know there yesterday and they said the bitching about overkill on the story is rampant in Bristol.
    The story obviously has to be covered and/or mentioned, but not to this degree. Or is this what we get because ESPN doesn't have some made-up 50 States In 50 Days/Who's Now/Titletown USA to occupy itself?
  4. Dollar Theater

    Dollar Theater New Member

    I agree about ESPN. I completely avoided Sportscenter for the last 2 weeks because it was nothing but Favre. All Favre, all the time. He even had his own tab heading on the bottom scroll. "NBA...NFL...MLB...FAVRE..."
  5. I was stunned to see about two hours after the trade was first announced that SI.com still was crediting foxsports.com. Guess they've gotten rid of so many people that they're just not nimble enough anymore to respond to breaking news.
  6. Kato

    Kato Active Member

    I can't believe the resources ESPN has devoted to Favre coverage. There have been the constant reports by Mort, Nichols, Nix, Werder, Paolantonio and Clayton. Siefert has covered it online. Wojciechowski has written at least three columns (pretty good ones, too). Am I missing anyone?
  7. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Maybe if they weren't all busy with live remotes and Breaking News updates and minute-by-minute accounts of the red Escalade, they could have done what Jay Glazer did: Get the damn story and phone it in.
  8. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I'm as cynical about the coverage as the next guy.

    But with all due respect to Jay Glazer, something tells me Favre handed him the story because of the 'FOX' name.

    Ask yourself why Favre was giving interviews to Greta Van Susteren of FOX News when he wasn't sitting down with anyone else.
  9. Kato

    Kato Active Member

    I thought Glazer was Thompson's guy. That was the word through all of this. Favre leaked to Mort and Thompson leaked to Glazer.
  10. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Was that the case? Ok. I didn't follow this at all, but I take your word for it.
  11. dsg155

    dsg155 Member

    We were all losers and will continue to be throughout the NFL season. Anybody that thought this thing was over now was sorely mistaken.
  12. GuessWho

    GuessWho Active Member

    The big losers were those who made the mistake this morning of watching any 20 seconds of Mike and Mike and seeing Greenberg practically wet himself in all his jets fanboi looser glory.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page