OK.
Glazer's piece was over the top. But frankly, that's Jay.
And I hate to say it, but a lot of readers are going to go from start to finish, with interest. Most of our readers are not, well, us.
But what really bugs me is this whole A) if we're just breaking sports news, it's not the Pentagon Papers, so it's not important, so it's not breaking news and B) if you break a story by a half hour, who'll remember or care, so what's the big deal? Sorry, Ragu, on this we just do not agree.
So A) people like Glazer aren't covering politics or wars. They're covering sports. It's part of this diverse business we're all in. Woodward and Bernstein weren't going to get Joe Gibbs returning to the Redskins (another Glazer story, by the way), because that's not their beat. It's Glazer's. In this case, he kicked ass. Relative to others in his profession, on the biggest story IN his profession that day, he was the star.
B) I really don't get the attitude about there not being much worth to breaking news. You know why it's worth something? Actually, two reasons: 1) When it's a huge story, and it leaves the rest of the country trailing far behind, it's a big deal. If every AP writethru is saying "as first reported by foxsports.com," it matters. And if it's repeated in newspapers all over the country, hell, it's branding.
But the one I keep repeating is: 2) Why they hell would anybody in this business not find it to be simply a lot of fun, one of the things we get to celebrate in this business, to beat everybody on a big story, no matter by how much? You don't enjoy seeing your byline, and new information nobody has under it, on the front page of a newspaper or front and center on a website? Or editing and producing that?
If you're a writer/reporter or editor and don't, I just don't get it. It's one of the most exciting things about this business. And if you're one of the big websites or newspaper sites, winning that battle by 20 minutes is still exhilarating. Or should be.