Being a fan and covering a team

[boundforboston]

I was hoping everyone here could help settle a debate I'm having with a colleague. He said that editors would prefer a fan of a team to cover that team because of the background knowledge. I said that that would just be a conflict of interest. What do you guys think?

 

[Stitch]

I was hoping everyone here could help settle a debate I'm having with a colleague. He said that editors would prefer a fan of a team to cover that team because of the background knowledge. I said that that would just be a conflict of interest. What do you guys think?

This is a business. Editors expect writers to do the job. Some editors just care that you fill space, Tweet, blog, chat, and hop around.

 

[kingcreole]

I don't regularly cover my alma mater (the University of Kansas), but I can tell you I've never had a problem taking off the fanboi hat when covering KU games. I'm there to work, not cheer.

 

[21]

When you say 'colleague'....is this someone who works in the sports media, or is he an accountant or ad rep or something else?

To answer your question: Most editors would prefer their writer not be fans at all. You can have plenty of background knowledge without wearing a jersey.

 

[boundforboston]

21 - Someone who works in sports media.

King - I just feel if I covered something I was a fan of that I'd pull punches or something subconsciously. Maybe others wouldn't. Like what would your coverage look like without you having gone to Kansas? But you'll never know.

 

[Dick Whitman]

21 - Someone who works in sports media.

King - I just feel if I covered something I was a fan of that I'd pull punches or something subconsciously. Maybe others wouldn't. Like what would your coverage look like without you having gone to Kansas? But you'll never know.

I've covered teams I pulled for growing up, and pull for teams again that I've covered, now that I'm off the beat (mostly because it's just a fun escape and to be a part of the conversation).

If you're a grown-up, let alone a journalist, it shouldn't matter at all. You are, ultimately, covering a business entity that you have nothing to do with. You'll lose the fanboi within days if not hours once you begin to realize that these are flesh and blood people you are covering. Your biggest challenge, regardless of background, is typically having to report in an unbiased way despite personal relationships that you'll develop. That, I think, is where most of the bias occurs, not from being a fan boi in a prior life.

When I covered preps, to give an example, I covered my own high school a lot, including programs that I actually wore the uniform for years before. All things being equal, I had a soft spot deep down hoping they'd win. But I also, when necessary, nailed them to the wall when I had to. It was never tough.

 

[BrianGriffin]

21 - Someone who works in sports media.

King - I just feel if I covered something I was a fan of that I'd pull punches or something subconsciously. Maybe others wouldn't. Like what would your coverage look like without you having gone to Kansas? But you'll never know.

I've covered teams I pulled for growing up, and pull for teams again that I've covered, now that I'm off the beat (mostly because it's just a fun escape and to be a part of the conversation).

If you're a grown-up, let alone a journalist, it shouldn't matter at all. You are, ultimately, covering a business entity that you have nothing to do with. You'll lose the fanboi within days if not hours once you begin to realize that these are flesh and blood people you are covering. Your biggest challenge, regardless of background, is typically having to report in an unbiased way despite personal relationships that you'll develop. That, I think, is where most of the bias occurs, not from being a fan boi in a prior life.

When I covered preps, to give an example, I covered my own high school a lot, including programs that I actually wore the uniform for years before. All things being equal, I had a soft spot deep down hoping they'd win. But I also, when necessary, nailed them to the wall when I had to. It was never tough.

This. Working in this business has taken the fanboi out of me.

It's a dirty little secret in the business that everybody sort of pulls for the team they cover, but not for fanboi reasons. It's simply more compelling to cover a Super Bowl team than an 8-8 team. I have to give myself little motivational speeches when I know the team I'm covering is headed for 11-20 (basketball) or 4-7 (football). I've had both of those teams and can tell you the conference championship basketball team and the BCS bowl teams have been more fun to cover.

But that's not the same as fandom.

 

[Dick Whitman]

21 - Someone who works in sports media.

King - I just feel if I covered something I was a fan of that I'd pull punches or something subconsciously. Maybe others wouldn't. Like what would your coverage look like without you having gone to Kansas? But you'll never know.

I've covered teams I pulled for growing up, and pull for teams again that I've covered, now that I'm off the beat (mostly because it's just a fun escape and to be a part of the conversation).

If you're a grown-up, let alone a journalist, it shouldn't matter at all. You are, ultimately, covering a business entity that you have nothing to do with. You'll lose the fanboi within days if not hours once you begin to realize that these are flesh and blood people you are covering. Your biggest challenge, regardless of background, is typically having to report in an unbiased way despite personal relationships that you'll develop. That, I think, is where most of the bias occurs, not from being a fan boi in a prior life.

When I covered preps, to give an example, I covered my own high school a lot, including programs that I actually wore the uniform for years before. All things being equal, I had a soft spot deep down hoping they'd win. But I also, when necessary, nailed them to the wall when I had to. It was never tough.

This. Working in this business has taken the fanboi out of me.

It's a dirty little secret in the business that everybody sort of pulls for the team they cover, but not for fanboi reasons. It's simply more compelling to cover a Super Bowl team than an 8-8 team. I have to give myself little motivational speeches when I know the team I'm covering is headed for 11-20 (basketball) or 4-7 (football). I've had both of those teams and can tell you the conference championship basketball team and the BCS bowl teams have been more fun to cover.

But that's not the same as fandom.

I imagine that this carries over into other beats. The people covering Mitt Romney's campaign surely are hoping he wins the nomination.

I used to talk with a friend about how the worst teams to cover are the ones that are mediocre. The best are either outstanding teams, or teams that crash and burn so spectacularly that you can't take your eyes away.

Mostly, I always found myself rooting for shifts in narrative.

 

[wisportswriter]

Either your colleague doesn't know much about sports editors, or he knows the worst SEs in the business. No editor worth his or her salt wants reporters to be fans of the teams they cover.

That said ...
In the 10 years at my current gig, I have regularly covered both my D-III alma mater and the big D-I state school I grew up rooting for. I honestly believe I have done a good job checking my former rooting interests at the door. Not only do I feel I have covered those teams fairly and objectively, I also feel like the job has washed away those rooting interests. No longer do I care whether those teams are successful.
But to be perfectly honest, I do wonder if that's 100 percent true. Am I really fair and objective? Or have I just convinced myself that I am? Maybe a piece of the old me remains, and because of that I'm not as objective or critical as I should be. I don't believe that's the case, but is it possible to see through my personal biases?

Ideally, a writer should not be a fan or former fan of the team he or she covers? Can it be done? Obviously I believe it can, provided the writer is a true professional.

 

[MonsterLobster]

The first communications class I took in college was taught by a guy who said on the first day, "When you're a reporter, you stop being impressed with people and organizations real fast."

I've found that to be absolutely true. The few teams or people I would have considered myself a fan of before I became a reporter have done nothing for me when I got to actually cover or meet them. You realize your favorite athletes are just people and your favorite teams are just business, warts and all.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

About 7 or 8 years ago, I did spot coverage for the local MLB team (maybe about 12 games over the course of the season), a team of which I am a huge fan. However, those nights, if the home team was trailing 3-2 in the bottom of the ninth and deadline was looming, I was silently but actively rooting for the visiting closer to nail it down.
Those nights made me realize I didn't want to be a full time MLB beat writer.

 

[podunk press]

I've covered two teams I grew up rooting for.

Met the players/coaches/media staff.

Suffice to say, I actually root against both teams now.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Being on the sports desk, I find that the one thing we consistently root for is the lack of overtime.

 

[BrianGriffin]

The first communications class I took in college was taught by a guy who said on the first day, "When you're a reporter, you stop being impressed with people and organizations real fast."

I've found that to be absolutely true. The few teams or people I would have considered myself a fan of before I became a reporter have done nothing for me when I got to actually cover or meet them. You realize your favorite athletes are just people and your favorite teams are just business, warts and all.

This is a very healthy realization.

And another realization is that you find more compelling personal stories or personalities on teams you don't cover. Once you get closer to the actual teams, you might like an opposing coach or something about an opposing program, more than than one your cover and sort of "pull" for that team at some level because of some contrast that team offers to the one you cover, if that makes sense.

As a fan, you'd never do this.

 

[schiezainc]

Regarding the whole "rooting" for the team you cover thing,

I look at it this way. I never openly root for anyone, for any reason but I will, in my head, cheer for a particular outcome that makes for the best story. Does that make sense?

In essence, I'm rooting for me.

A couple years ago, I got the chance to cover a preps softball championship game where our local team was playing. During the offseason, their coach tied in a car accident. I knew that, win or lose, it was going to be a compelling story but rooted, in my head, for them to win because it would make for the best photos and best quotes afterward and, to me, the winning angle was much more compelling to write so that's what I pulled for.

If they would have lost, I still would have been objective, still would have done a solid job but that team winning helped me rack up a couple of awards and put together one of my best stories.

So, again, not rooting for any player/team. Rooting for me.

 

[Gomer]

I found that learning to be unbiased also took the fan out of me for teams I don't cover. I don't cheer for my favourite pro football team the way I used to even though I'll never write a gamer on them.

It's just part of the business. If you keep the fan hat on it clouds your judgement.

 

[jr/shotglass]

It was involuntary for me, and I had the "no cheering in the press box" thing down by the time I was 16.

The last team I openly rooted for was my college baseball team.

 

[SoCalDude]

Being on the sports desk, I find that the one thing we consistently root for is the lack of overtime.

Absolutely no OT or extra innings.

And one guy I used to cover baseball with proclaimed that he was "cheering" for the home team to win every game, thus eliminating the bottom of the ninth, thus reducing the season by 81 innings and 9 games.

 

[jr/shotglass]

We have a running gag in our newsroom. When somebody else is in the slot, if there's any chance there could be extra time, I'll say something like, "Oh, there's no way this one's going overtime." And of course, if it does, everyone rags on the jinx.

And vice versa when I'm in the slot.

 

[sprtswrtr10]

Either your colleague doesn't know much about sports editors, or he knows the worst SEs in the business. No editor worth his or her salt wants reporters to be fans of the teams they cover.

That said ...
In the 10 years at my current gig, I have regularly covered both my D-III alma mater and the big D-I state school I grew up rooting for. I honestly believe I have done a good job checking my former rooting interests at the door. Not only do I feel I have covered those teams fairly and objectively, I also feel like the job has washed away those rooting interests. No longer do I care whether those teams are successful.
But to be perfectly honest, I do wonder if that's 100 percent true. Am I really fair and objective? Or have I just convinced myself that I am? Maybe a piece of the old me remains, and because of that I'm not as objective or critical as I should be. I don't believe that's the case, but is it possible to see through my personal biases?

Ideally, a writer should not be a fan or former fan of the team he or she covers? Can it be done? Obviously I believe it can, provided the writer is a true professional.

I'm down with this thought.
I think it describes me.
I will tell you the times my old allegiances, I think, might present themselves.
When it's a sport that's not my beat, but still a school I cover (that I grew up rooting for).
I could be watching it on TV.

I find myself not as netural as I am on press row (like there are still courtside press rows)
But the more interesting thing to me, is that I question my neutrality when I'm holding the teams I cover accountable. I don't think I'm overcompensating, but I wonder if I'm harsher because my childhood allegiances have offended me.

All that being said, I think I'm doing fine.
I've been where I am for a long time, I unabashedly root for the story - yes, the changing narrative, though I don't think overtly; I guess it's a way of rooting for myself - and am only suspicious of these other leanings I describe. But I am suspicious of them. It's a strange thing.