Code of the West

[jgmacg]

It is unquestionably the consensus on the board that a sports columnist must be willing to face the people he or she writes about. This is usually described as some sort of high noon showdown in the locker room.

I can see the merit of this if we're talking about beat writers, of course. But why all the ur-cowboy machismo about columnists facing down their subjects the day after a piece runs?

Setting aside, as much as possible, the Mariotti/Guillen flap, explain to me the columnists' code of the West.

 

[The Rules of Golf]

As a tumbleweed blows through SportsJournalists.com.

 

[Ace]

It's not a showdown. You are just making yourself available if the person wants to vent. They may actually respect you for it.

 

[MU_was_not_so_hard]

It's not a showdown. You are just making yourself available if the person wants to vent. They may actually respect you for it.

Exactly. It works the same for beat writers, too. If you're going to write something, especially if its new, don't duck and hide.

 

[spinning27]

I don't think there's any "code."

There's no rule that a columnist has to show up and face the music.  But if they choose not to after ripping somebody, it seems cowardly.

But that isn't even really the issue.  It's the columnist who doesn't show up period that pisses people off.

I'm a college beat guy for a metro paper.  One of our columnists comes to a fair amount of practices, comes to games that he doesn't write about, is generally recognized as having informed opinions because he's around the program a lot.  The other columnist never shows up at practices, only comes to games he's writing about, and it's clear from reading his columns that he's basically uninformed about what's going on.

Does it matter to the readers?  Most of them probably don't know the difference.  But it matters to people within the program, etc.  If I'm a columnist, I want to be the guy a coach or player comes to when he's got a story to tell or something to complain about that might make for a good column.  The only way to get that stuff, though, is to be the first columnist I described and not the second.

 

[Gold]

I was a stringer for news side, and I worked with a regular reporter, who did stuff during the day.

However, if she wrote things she knew would generate a reaction and upset city council or school board members, she would call me and say she was going to the meetings to look them in the eye. She would get me switched to another meeting so I wouldn't lose any hours.

Integrity - That's the way it's supposed to be.

 

[jason_whitlock]

There are a lot of reasons why a columnist must show his face, especially after writing something critical. But one reason stands out above all others: Professional courtesy to your beat-writing co-worker.

If the columnist doesn't show his face regularly, the beat writer(s) take all the crap and (can) have their relationships damaged because of what someone else wrote.

I could list a million more reasons, but that one there is reason enough.

 

[Editude]

The columnist should be among the best reporters on the staff. That means gathering information, not just firing off from the comforts of the couch. It doesn't mean going to all the games, if there are other ways to back up opinions, but it does help to be a presence as well at various sites and levels.

 

[spinning27]

If the columnist doesn't show his face regularly, the beat writer(s) take all the crap and have their relationships damaged because of what someone else wrote.

I haven't really had any relationships damaged because of what a colleague wrote, but I have had people engage me in some uncomfortable discussions about a certain column or series of columns. It's uncomfortable because when they start bitching about why so-and-so columnist is never around, it gets awfully hard to defend.

 

[BillyT]

I think there's also a point about talking to the person you blast *before* you write about them.

That's only good and fair reporting.

I am sure that didn't happen in the Mariotti situation and generally doesn't happen enough.

 

[tyler durden 71351]

I think there's also a point about talking to the person you blast *before* you write about them.

That's only good and fair reporting.

I am sure that didn't happen in the Mariotti situation and generally doesn't happen enough.

Yeah, ideally you should talk to anyone who has mentioned by name in an article or column you write. At the very least, you should make an all-out effort to talk to everyone you mention by name

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

The columnist should be among the best reporters on the staff. That means gathering information, not just firing off from the comforts of the couch. It doesn't mean going to all the games, if there are other ways to back up opinions, but it does help to be a presence as well at various sites and levels.

I don't think it's the columnist's role to gather information, there are beat reporters who fill that role. I've worked with columnists who did break news as a result of relationships they had built with powers-that-be outside the locker rooms. But I believe their primary purpose is to comment.

Now as to informed opinions, I think there are various ways to achieve being informed, not all of them including working the locker room. A good beat writer is going to be using the phone a lot, and so is a columnist. A good columnist in a market with a lot of pro and college teams is going to be humble enough to realize he's a generalist, and he's going to rely on beat writers to brief him and sometimes feed him stuff. I don't have a problem with a columnist writing from home as long as he's giving me more substance than can found on talk radio, in other words not just writing off the top of his head but doing some research.

I think it's not required that restaurant critics and theater critics and op-ed pundits show up every time they write something critical, but the locker room is a more macho environment and sports columnists do look bad if they fail to show up after an especially scathing piece, one that questions someone's integrity or courage or whether the coach or athlete ought to remain employed. If the columnist just writes that someone had a bad game or made a bad call, I don't think it's necessary to show up the next day.

 

[jgmacg]

The columnist should be among the best reporters on the staff. That means gathering information, not just firing off from the comforts of the couch. It doesn't mean going to all the games, if there are other ways to back up opinions, but it does help to be a presence as well at various sites and levels.

I don't think it's the columnist's role to gather information, there are beat reporters who fill that role. I've worked with columnists who did break news as a result of relationships they had built with powers-that-be outside the locker rooms. But I believe their primary purpose is to comment.

Now as to informed opinions, I think there are various ways to achieve being informed, not all of them including working the locker room. A good beat writer is going to be using the phone a lot, and so is a columnist. A good columnist in a market with a lot of pro and college teams is going to be humble enough to realize he's a generalist, and he's going to rely on beat writers to brief him and sometimes feed him stuff. I don't have a problem with a columnist writing from home as long as he's giving me more substance than can found on talk radio, in other words not just writing off the top of his head but doing some research.

I think it's not required that restaurant critics and theater critics and op-ed pundits show up every time they write something critical, but the locker room is a more macho environment and sports columnists do look bad if they fail to show up after an especially scathing piece, one that questions someone's integrity or courage or whether the coach or athlete ought to remain employed. If the columnist just writes that someone had a bad game or made a bad call, I don't think it's necessary to show up the next day.

I left this thread alone for a long time hoping that someone would rise to the occasion in answering it. Happily, and not surprisingly, Mr. Ridgeway has done just that.

His answer, it seems to me, is the broadest, smartest, and most generous one - not just here, but among all the many threads we've seen this week flaying Mr. Mariotti for his poor judgment. Mr. Ridgeway's description is also, I think, the most representative of the way things should, and do, mostly work.

Many of our colleagues, on the other hand, seem inclined to frame the discussion only in terms of how big a sissy Mr. Mariotti must be.

I take no position on that matter, but I posted this thread, and asked an obvious question in an obtuse way, to get us to the next theoretical level in that discussion, which I believe is this:

Must we, as sports writers, adopt the same alpha-male jock code of honor and conduct as the athletes we cover?

If so, why?

 

[Double Down]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bayless/060623

I don't know that I agree with it, but Skip Bayless (oh, the horror!) had a resonable and thoughtful take on the subject of whether or not columnists should face the people they write about.

Bayless' opinion is that a columnist is more likely to pull punches if he/she is going to face the people they're writing about, and that "showing up the next day in the locker room after writing something critical" is all about macho posturing, and has nothing to do with being fair.

It's definitely worth a read, although I confess that I have argued, here and elsewhere, that Bayless is Mariotti-Lite.

Either way, he does a far better job of rationalizing why a columnist doesn't have to, or shouldn't have to, go into the locker room than Mariotti ever could.

In 2000, I tried and failed to explain myself to Frank Thomas in the White Sox clubhouse -- and then-manager Jerry Manuel had to step between us and ask me to leave until Thomas and I could cool down. I would have been glad to have met Thomas in a neutral setting -- say, a restaurant -- but I'm not sure he would have had the courage.

San Francisco Giants general manager Brian Sabean once had to be restrained from getting in my face, then asked me to promise to call him before writing anything negative about him or his team. I did. He always took my calls and never complained about another thing I wrote.

But I must admit I pulled some punches. Hey, I'm human.

I must admit I became a fan of A's GM Billy Beane, both professionally and personally. I once told Billy I was going to criticize him for trading for Keith Foulke, who had twice lost his closer's job when I covered the White Sox. Billy calmly explained to me why I was way off base and I quoted him on it.

As usual, Billy was right. I wish I could develop that kind of relationship with every executive. But very few are as secure as Beane.

I must admit, I deified Michael Jordan in print when he played for the Bulls -- in part because he returned my calls. But hey, we're talking about Michael Jordan. I also admit I was way too nice in print to Dave Wannstedt (when he coached the Bears) and Dennis Erickson (when he coached the 49ers) because I let myself get too close to them.

 

[Ace]

And I would argue that a columnist might be a better read if he does pull his punches.

It's easy and not entertaining to say something is stupid or someone sucks.

It's much more interesting to read a clever Oscar Wilde type quip.

To whit: I could say that journalists are crappy writers

Oscar Wilde would say: "The difference between literature and journalism is that journalism is unreadable and literature is not read."

And I'm sure Oscar would not be afraid to stroll into the Billy Goat Tavern the next day with his ruffled sleeves and velvet overcoat and take whatever abuse you might care to heave in his direction.

 

[PEteacher]

Morally, it might be a good idea for columnists to show up. But the reality is, he's done his job if he faces the readers and gets them thinking.

 

[blackmuddyriver]

The code for columnist suggests there should be a different one for them than for everyone else.
Not that everything's exactly the same, but everything should be pretty much the same.
If you're on the move when something critical comes out, that's fine, but you ought to be checking in wherever it is.
If you aren't making a personal attack, what's the big issue? Somebody might disagree with your opinion?
If you're making a personal attack, maybe you ought to give it some thought.
But you don't write and hide, that's just sophomoric.

 

[leo1]

i find this to be an odd debate.

i guess it all comes down to your perspective on things but i fail to understand how anyone can fail to understand why a columnist should -- but isn't required to -- show up after he writes something critical about someone or a team. until it was raised on this thread, it never occured to me that showing up after writing something critical could be called macho posturing. you can use any word or phrase you want, but it's about treating people with integrity and respect. when you tell someone to 'be a man' you're telling someone to act with integrity, respect, class and dignity. that's not macho posturing.

macho posturing, to me, is pretending to be tough when you're not because something has affected you in some manner. how can that be equated with showing up in the locker room the next day after writing something critical? no one says the columnist has to stand there and pretend any verbal (or physical) abuse isn't hurtful. it would be macho posturing if the code required a columnist to silently take all verbal abuse heaped on him and maintain a poker face the entire time. of course that would be absurd.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

The columnist should be among the best reporters on the staff. That means gathering information, not just firing off from the comforts of the couch. It doesn't mean going to all the games, if there are other ways to back up opinions, but it does help to be a presence as well at various sites and levels.

I don't think it's the columnist's role to gather information, there are beat reporters who fill that role. I've worked with columnists who did break news as a result of relationships they had built with powers-that-be outside the locker rooms. But I believe their primary purpose is to comment.

Now as to informed opinions, I think there are various ways to achieve being informed, not all of them including working the locker room. A good beat writer is going to be using the phone a lot, and so is a columnist. A good columnist in a market with a lot of pro and college teams is going to be humble enough to realize he's a generalist, and he's going to rely on beat writers to brief him and sometimes feed him stuff. I don't have a problem with a columnist writing from home as long as he's giving me more substance than can found on talk radio, in other words not just writing off the top of his head but doing some research.

I think it's not required that restaurant critics and theater critics and op-ed pundits show up every time they write something critical, but the locker room is a more macho environment and sports columnists do look bad if they fail to show up after an especially scathing piece, one that questions someone's integrity or courage or whether the coach or athlete ought to remain employed. If the columnist just writes that someone had a bad game or made a bad call, I don't think it's necessary to show up the next day.

I think the restaurant/theatre critic comparison is unfair. A restaurant critic reviews Sloppy Joe's Mortuary and Meatloaf Bonanza and then moves on. He doesn't have a continuing relationship with Sloppy Joe unless he/she wants to have one. But Mariotti doesn't write one column about Ozzie and move on -- it is an ongoing relationship and you don't respect someone who is a hit-and-run artist.

Bayless did make some good points. But at the same time, he inadvertantely made the case for the other side. Bayless may not have gone to the locker room everytime, but he had the professionalism to call Sabean/Beane before articles, give them a heads up and ask for comment. If you are willing to face the music, whether it be wrath, thoughtful rebuttals, praise, etc., whether it is in person or via phone, e-mail, whatever, then you are doing your job correctly. Mariotti has shown no indication of doing that.

 

[Tom Petty]

It's not a showdown. You are just making yourself available if the person wants to vent. They may actually respect you for it.

ace - of course you should face the people you write about, but face 'em to let 'em vent? **** 'em. you made the conscious choice to write who you wrote and if anyone thinks someone should take **** for having an opinion, to hell with that. writers weren't put on the earth to take **** from the public figures they decide to make a topic.

although, that's not saying the cat out of chicago isn't a slash and dash douche bag. for me, you have to face the folks you pontificate on, but you don't have to listen to a load of ****, either.