Are Mitch Albom, Mike Lupica and writers of their ilk...

[earlyentry]

still as relevant in today's landscape? As an aspiring reporter, I try to read as many journalists from as many newspapers/web sites as possible. However, it's tough to devote my time on the writings of Lupica and Albom. Is this wrong? I respect there work and if I lived in the library I would probably read their earlier works, but it may be just a generational thing?

 

[Songbird]

I respect there work ...

 

[Appgrad05]

Songbird with the softball shot over the left field fence. Take a curtain call, buddy.


Seriously, there is a reason why they got where they are. But you'd be better off reading the beat guys from those shops instead of the superstar columnists.

 

[BigSleeper]

They may not be as revered as much anymore, but I wouldn't disregard their work, styles and accomplishments. Any aspiring journalist would be wise to look at the work of accomplished colleagues, past and present.

 

[lono]

They remain decidedly short. And loud.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And we're off!

 

[lono]

And we're off!

And we're off!

Sorry, FB, it's just how I roll. LOL

 

[earlyentry]

I respect there work ...

Doh! OK, it's a message board. THEIR work is admirable. But whenever I read something about them - mostly blogs - it's usually negative. Lupica's too busy writing about politics, Albom makes up his stuff to make it more emotional, stuff like that.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Detractors of Lupica will have their say, no doubt. But whether you agree with that or not, he is worth studying because the way he puts words together is so orderly and unambiguous that anyone who can read will understand exactly what he is saying. And he varies the rhythm very well: short sentence, short sentence, short sentence, long sentence, short sentence, short sentence, long sentence. Easy, like watching a pitcher with smooth delivery, or a guitarist who uses no more notes than he must. Now you can say Clapton recorded ****ty songs in the 1980s (although I'd disagree), but he played them very well. And you can say Lupica made better points 20 years ago, but if you didn't know about his old stuff, if you were just discovering him now, you'd still think this guy is very easy to read. And that's why he is worth studying: clarity and cadence. If the other stuff bothers you, try to ignore it and look at the structure. Usually each sentence flows right into the next, and not everybody can do that as consistently as he does. What he says might turn off some people and they may stop reading for that reason, but no one's going to get lost in there. Everyone has bad days, but if you read him a lot, it's usually a well-maintained trail through the forest.

 

[heyabbott]

still as relevant in today's landscape? As an aspiring reporter, I try to read as many journalists from as many newspapers/web sites as possible. However, it's tough to devote my time on the writings of Lupica and Albom. Is this wrong? I respect there work and if I lived in the library I would probably read their earlier works, but it may be just a generational thing?

“The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high-school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.”

 

[silentbob]

well said, mr ridgeway

 

[Songbird]

I respect there work ...

Albom makes up his stuff ...

 

[Songbird]

And I don't so much mind spelling words the wong way on a messige bored 'cuz I dew it offen.

 

[earlyentry]

Songbird, what's your beef? I'm not HEAR too jaudge.

 

[earlyentry]

I guess it's to be expected. This is a sports journalists site. I guess you're not too busy reporting on anything where you live, right?

 

[Songbird]

No beif with your spelling, which is why I wrote that back-to-back post. I was quoting your quote.

Still many folks here upset about the Albom deal with writing a column ahead of time (read: Final 4) — meaning he made something up before it happened — and didn't get much of a punishment. I actually like watching him on Sports Reporters, but if that's something I did (read: make something up as fact before an event happened), I'd never work in the biz again. I've made a few errors along the way, but never that.

And I love jaudging. Good form of exxirsize :D

 

[earlyentry]

Why did you quote "makes stuff up."



When I read Albom's column today on usssportspages, a poster immediately calls out Mitch for not checking his facts - in this case, how Maybin was called up not from a Pa. hotel, like Albom reports in his first paragraph, but on the road from his team bus. Who knows if the poster had HIS facts straight, and decided instead to simply spew an insult at Albom. Happens all the time, I guess.

 

[slappy4428]

They remain decidedly short. And loud.

I will refrain, for now, on my perspective on The Dwarf and Loopy, there writing and they're place in sports as opposed to fiction writing and my stance is well-documented hear.
I will say however, after watching The Sports Reporters today, I can't wait to hear what Loopy's voice is finally going to sound like once he squeaks through puberty.


And APPgrad, I'll go one better. You'd also be better off reading the other columnists at the paper -- although in the Freep's case, I fully mean Mike Rosenberg as opposed to the other guy who rarely lives up to his name.

 

[Songbird]

EE, your sentence was easy to mess around with in quote-function.

As for today's column ... that's an interesting tidbit. I don't know the answer as to who's in the right/wrong. It's worth exploring.

 

[slappy4428]

I hate sticking up for the Dwarf, but his first graf does not say he was asleep in his hotel room when he found out.
It says two nights earlier, he was sleeping in a hotel room sharing his room with a teammate.
The column is never clear how he found out, but the Detroit News' Tom Gage and AP writer Mike Fitzpatrick made it very clear Maybin found out while he was on the bus.