Double Down
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,349
Welcome back to SJ University's: "What Makes This Piece Good?" (which we are now turning into an acronym!). We know that making your way in the sports journalism world today takes everything you'e got. And taking a break from all your worries sure would help a lot. We're always glad you came.
If you missed previous editions, you can check them out here:
1. Buster Olney on Mariano Rivera's cutter.
2. Mike Bianchi on Dale Earnhardt's funeral.
3. Sally Jenkins on Kwame's Brown's rookie year.
4. Selena Roberts' Knicks/Heat playoff gamer
This week's example comes, in a round about way, at the suggestion of one of our posters, Evil ... Thy Name is Orville Redenbacher. Evil pointed out what a good idea it would be to discuss a story where the reporter did not have the cooperation of the subject. I couldn't agree more, in part because I think it's a skill (and I do believe it's a skill, meaning it can be learned) you almost have to have in this day in age. Especially if you're going to write about someone who doesn't really want to be written about. The first magazine story I wrote was a write-around. So was the second. (In the fourth, my subject was dead.) I learned quickly that if I expected to sit in a room with my subjects and get all kinds of access/time with them, I was going to get creamed. Even at the highest level, access often sucks. It might take months to talk an athlete (more likely his agent or a PR person) into giving it to you, and you may have days or weeks to file instead.
For the most part, access is ideal, obviously. But if you can't get it, either because the subject doesn't want to give it or because he/she doesn't want to give it to your publication, you're often still going to have to make the story work. The writers who can make the write-around work are ones who are going to keep getting assignments. Most of us aren't Gay Talese, which is why I think it's not particularly helpful every time we throw "Frank Sinatra Has A Cold" as an example of what to do when the subject won't talk.
Which brings us to Rick Reilly. However you feel about Reilly these days, in the late 80s and mid-90s, he was doing all kind of interesting things with just about every assignment at SI. It's almost like he was playing around — or experimenting — with the form of sports feature writing. Maybe his style was never for you, but you probably still have to admit, the guy was pretty damn creative in the way he approached stuff. He reported his ass off on stories.
In late 1993, Reilly was tasked with the difficult assignment of writing an in-depth profile of Patrick Ewing, who, despite playing his college basketball in the shadow of the Washington Post and his professional career in New York (and its many fine papers), had never really been the subject of a great profile. Ewing valued his privacy too much, and didn't really give a hoot about giving up a piece of himself to writers, even to Sports Illustrated when the magazine was at the height of its power and influence.
So Reilly decided to do something different. The result has always been one of my favorite of his pieces. It's not one that comes up often when people talk about the great Reilly stories (I didn't see it get a single mention in his retirement). But it is one I think every young journalist ought to read. I know he can be polarizing, some day you might be tasked with writing about someone who simply won't talk to you, and what Reilly showed in this piece is that the easiest way to combat that is to, quite literally, talk to anyone you can think of related to that person.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/1994/01/17/130259/the-unknown-player-of-all-the-stars-in-the-nba-none-is-a-bigger-mystery-than-patrick-ewing-the-aloof-center-for-the-new-york-knicks
Is this piece good? I'm happy to argue the reasons why I think it is, but you're certainly allowed to feel differently. If you agree that it is good, what stands out? Why does its gimmick ultimately help you know Ewing in a way you otherwise didn't before reading it?
As always, feel free to PM suggestions of stories, or topics, you'd like to see discussed. Just know that I'm trying to select pieces that haven't been picked over hundreds of times, and have some value as a teaching tool.
If you missed previous editions, you can check them out here:
1. Buster Olney on Mariano Rivera's cutter.
2. Mike Bianchi on Dale Earnhardt's funeral.
3. Sally Jenkins on Kwame's Brown's rookie year.
4. Selena Roberts' Knicks/Heat playoff gamer
This week's example comes, in a round about way, at the suggestion of one of our posters, Evil ... Thy Name is Orville Redenbacher. Evil pointed out what a good idea it would be to discuss a story where the reporter did not have the cooperation of the subject. I couldn't agree more, in part because I think it's a skill (and I do believe it's a skill, meaning it can be learned) you almost have to have in this day in age. Especially if you're going to write about someone who doesn't really want to be written about. The first magazine story I wrote was a write-around. So was the second. (In the fourth, my subject was dead.) I learned quickly that if I expected to sit in a room with my subjects and get all kinds of access/time with them, I was going to get creamed. Even at the highest level, access often sucks. It might take months to talk an athlete (more likely his agent or a PR person) into giving it to you, and you may have days or weeks to file instead.
For the most part, access is ideal, obviously. But if you can't get it, either because the subject doesn't want to give it or because he/she doesn't want to give it to your publication, you're often still going to have to make the story work. The writers who can make the write-around work are ones who are going to keep getting assignments. Most of us aren't Gay Talese, which is why I think it's not particularly helpful every time we throw "Frank Sinatra Has A Cold" as an example of what to do when the subject won't talk.
Which brings us to Rick Reilly. However you feel about Reilly these days, in the late 80s and mid-90s, he was doing all kind of interesting things with just about every assignment at SI. It's almost like he was playing around — or experimenting — with the form of sports feature writing. Maybe his style was never for you, but you probably still have to admit, the guy was pretty damn creative in the way he approached stuff. He reported his ass off on stories.
In late 1993, Reilly was tasked with the difficult assignment of writing an in-depth profile of Patrick Ewing, who, despite playing his college basketball in the shadow of the Washington Post and his professional career in New York (and its many fine papers), had never really been the subject of a great profile. Ewing valued his privacy too much, and didn't really give a hoot about giving up a piece of himself to writers, even to Sports Illustrated when the magazine was at the height of its power and influence.
So Reilly decided to do something different. The result has always been one of my favorite of his pieces. It's not one that comes up often when people talk about the great Reilly stories (I didn't see it get a single mention in his retirement). But it is one I think every young journalist ought to read. I know he can be polarizing, some day you might be tasked with writing about someone who simply won't talk to you, and what Reilly showed in this piece is that the easiest way to combat that is to, quite literally, talk to anyone you can think of related to that person.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/1994/01/17/130259/the-unknown-player-of-all-the-stars-in-the-nba-none-is-a-bigger-mystery-than-patrick-ewing-the-aloof-center-for-the-new-york-knicks
Is this piece good? I'm happy to argue the reasons why I think it is, but you're certainly allowed to feel differently. If you agree that it is good, what stands out? Why does its gimmick ultimately help you know Ewing in a way you otherwise didn't before reading it?
As always, feel free to PM suggestions of stories, or topics, you'd like to see discussed. Just know that I'm trying to select pieces that haven't been picked over hundreds of times, and have some value as a teaching tool.
