D'oh! Sports writer tells mag.. he's embarassed to cover sports.

[blueview]

"Let them eat cake."

Why do I keep thinking these words every time I see this thread or any mention of Harlan among my peers?

Because you are ill-informed and prone to make foolish conclusions that are also cliches?

No, probably because I realize that it was such a flippant statement to make at a time when there are other reporters without jobs by no doing of their own (see: News, Rocky Mountain) and someone didn't realize how fortunate he is to be in a position that he's in.

Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, DD, and I understand if Chico's your boy, but if that's how you feel ...

 

[21]

I don't know Chico Harlan, and completely believe those on this thread who say he's a good guy.

I DO know we don't give a lot of 'good guy' exemptions to athletes and coaches and even civilians who cough up the occasional hairball in an interview. People who collect quotes for a living should know better when they're on the other side of the interview.

 

[buckweaver]

As I waited, I asked myself, "Am I, a 31-year-old man, really in a job where my work depends on the whim of an adolescent?" As I thought about it later, I did concede that unless I owned my own business, my work would always depend on somebody's whim. But, I figured, I might as well get paid better for it and have weekends free. So I quit and went back to school.

I ain't 31 yet and I didn't say that about adolescents, in particular, but I did have the same feeling. It bothered me in I'm sure the same way it bothered you (and many others.)

I solved that particular uneasiness in my mind by switching from reporting to the desk, where a) I like my job just as much; and b) my schedule doesn't depend on anybody's whim, which was hugely important to me. I don't get nights or weekends free, but that doesn't bother me because I'd rather get up at noon and the world is less crowded when your "weekend" is Sun/Mon or Tues/Wed instead. Also, I get paid better and -- up until the last 2-3 years -- there always seemed to be more job opportunities available because who doesn't need a good and reliable desker, especially in sports?

Not that it means anything these days, but I would urge reporters who feel this way to consider making a change like that instead of growing so bitter and/or cynical and/or disillusioned that they end up blurting out the things that Mr. Harlan said.

 

[pallister]

Anyone who gets paid to watch games should be embarrassed.

 

[bostonbred]

Anyone who gets paid to watch games should be embarrassed.

who gets paid to watch games?

 

[Double Down]

I agree it was not the right thing to say, especially in this environment, but it is not a reflection of who he is. And I'd also like to point out to some people here that Chico did not just luck his way into this job. There is a lot of hard work and a lot of talent involved too. He's fortunate to be where he is. He's also there for a reason. And just so you know, the "he should just jump to the news desk if he hates it so much" path is not exactly something you just "do" at the Washington Post.

I've said my my piece sticking up for someone I respect and like.

People can draw whatever conclusions they choose.

Nothing personal, but I think I need a mental health break from this place.

 

[pallister]

who gets paid to watch games?

Did I really need to use the blue font?

Nothing personal, but I think I need a mental health break from this place.

We all do at one time or another.

 

[bostonbred]

who gets paid to watch games?

Did I really need to use the blue font?

did I really need to use the blue font?

 

[daemon]

80-to-90 percent of this board would take the nationals post beat in a heartbeat. it's irrelevant how they much they win.

i don't know chico, in fact he's probably a good guy like most of you have stated, but he comes off as an arrogant prick in this piece. and it makes this profession look bad.

First, I'd beg to differ that 80 to 90 percent of this board would take the Nationals job in a heartbeat. I sure as hell wouldn't. Not only are you covering a life-sucking beat, you are covering a horrendous team with little to no chance of competing in the near future. I've had people tell me that losing teams are fun ones to cover. But I hate watching losing teams. I got into sports writing because I like covering athletic excellence, and I think that human stories set against a backdrop of athletic excellence are some of the most compelling there are. The Nationals are not excellent. Far from it. The ownership blows and the front office is impossible to deal with, from what I understand.

Second, I agree Chico comes across poorly in the article. And, fairly or unfairly, it doesn't do much to eliminate the stigma of arrogance and entitlement that is often attached to Syracuse grads. However, as journalists I think we are all aware that someone's verbatim words are not always an accurate reflection of the viewpoint they were attempting to express. And I can definitely understand why Chico would use the word "embarassed." I'll be honest -- I am embarassed to cover sports sometimes. I'm embarassed that on certain days my life revolves around asking another man how his groin feels. I'm embarassed when I stand and watch grown men beg other grown men for their autographs. I'm embarassed that I'm not making the world a better place. I'm embarassed that other reporters are in war-torn lands, and I'm at a basketball game.

But, always, that embarassment passes, and I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, I am fortunate to do what I do.

 

[21]

First, I'd beg to differ that 80 to 90 percent of this board would take the Nationals job in a heartbeat. I sure as hell wouldn't. Not only are you covering a life-sucking beat, you are covering a horrendous team with little to no chance of competing in the near future. I've had people tell me that losing teams are fun ones to cover. But I hate watching losing teams. I got into sports writing because I like covering athletic excellence, and I think that human stories set against a backdrop of athletic excellence are some of the most compelling there are. The Nationals are not excellent. Far from it. The ownership blows and the front office is impossible to deal with, from what I understand.

Prayers and good luck in advance for the responses headed your way.

 

[JC]

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the ****s. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

 

[daemon]

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the ****s. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

Nobody said anything about being a fan. I just find people far more pleasant and easy to deal when they are winning. Besides, when you cover a winning team, more people care about what you are writing, and you have a bigger presence in the paper. It has nothing to do with being a fan.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

I DO know we don't give a lot of 'good guy' exemptions to athletes and coaches and even civilians who cough up the occasional hairball in an interview. People who collect quotes for a living should know better when they're on the other side of the interview.

Excellent point. People say something, it's on tape, and they know they said it....then they see it in print and say, "But that's not what I meant," even though it's an exact quote. Didn't someone claim to have been misquoted in their own autobiography. It happens, but it shouldn't happen to someone who understands the process of interviewing and writing.

 

[JC]

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the ****s. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

Nobody said anything about being a fan. I just find people far more pleasant and easy to deal when they are winning. Besides, when you cover a winning team, more people care about what you are writing, and you have a bigger presence in the paper. It has nothing to do with being a fan.

So you would wait for the Nationals to be good before you would take the job? To me, what you're saying is far more embarrassing than what Chico said.

 

[daemon]

No,

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the ****s. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

Nobody said anything about being a fan. I just find people far more pleasant and easy to deal when they are winning. Besides, when you cover a winning team, more people care about what you are writing, and you have a bigger presence in the paper. It has nothing to do with being a fan.

So you would wait for the Nationals to be good before you would take the job? To me, what you're saying is far more embarrassing than what Chico said.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I am not among the 90 percent who would allegedly love to have the job that Chico has. I like my job better, for a variety of reasons. And I find rather juvenile the sentiment that a man is not allowed to ***** about his job simply because some people view it as an upgrade over theirs. Like I said before, he didn't come across very well. I'm sure he regrets saying what he said. I wouldn't have said it. Perhaps it does hint at a unjustified sense of entitlement. Whatever the case, the notion that he should be absolutely in love with his job just because he isn't covering preps in northern Alaska is stupid.

 

[outofplace]

No,

Explain to me why it matters if the team you cover is the ****s. You are a journalist not a fan, you might be a fan of sports but you shouldn't be a fan of the team you cover.

Nobody said anything about being a fan. I just find people far more pleasant and easy to deal when they are winning. Besides, when you cover a winning team, more people care about what you are writing, and you have a bigger presence in the paper. It has nothing to do with being a fan.

So you would wait for the Nationals to be good before you would take the job? To me, what you're saying is far more embarrassing than what Chico said.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I am not among the 90 percent who would allegedly love to have the job that Chico has. I like my job better, for a variety of reasons. And I find rather juvenile the sentiment that a man is not allowed to ***** about his job simply because some people view it as an upgrade over theirs. Like I said before, he didn't come across very well. I'm sure he regrets saying what he said. I wouldn't have said it. Perhaps it does hint at a unjustified sense of entitlement. Whatever the case, the notion that he should be absolutely in love with his job just because he isn't covering preps in northern Alaska is stupid.

Nobody said he isn't allowed to ***** about his job. Doing it in print is stupid. Saying he is embarrassed by it absolutely demonstrates an annoying sense of entitlement, whether it be justified or not.