No small talk -- big deal?

[shockey]

I wouldn't get the stuff I do if it weren't for said "small talk." So, yes, I'm a big believer in it.

Think of it this way: the more normal/relaxed you sound and interact with the people you're covering, the more relaxed they will be with you.

100 percent correct. 8) 8) 8)

 

[Beach_Bum]

being personable enough to establish a rapport with people is an important part of the job. if you can't shmooze, you lose.

those who can't become editors/desk people.

Not entirely true. The best editors are better at this than their reporters. Being a good editor is ALL about communicating.

 

[shockey]

being personable enough to establish a rapport with people is an important part of the job. if you can't shmooze, you lose.

those who can't become editors/desk people.

Not entirely true. The best editors are better at this than their reporters. Being a good editor is ALL about communicating.

yeah. but most suck at it.

and i didn't mean those who can't become sports editors. the best sports eds were once decent writers/reporters. in my vast experience, those most valuable and under-appreciated sports copy editors, though, haven't worked in the field because they're most comfy with their computers and don't necessarily have the right personality to do the shmoozing required to be an effective sportswriter. just this man's experience.8) 8) 8)

 

[Cristiano_Ronaldo]

being personable enough to establish a rapport with people is an important part of the job. if you can't shmooze, you lose.

those who can't become editors/desk people.

Not entirely true. The best editors are better at this than their reporters. Being a good editor is ALL about communicating.

yeah. but most suck at it.

and i didn't mean those who can't become sports editors. the best were once decent writers/reporters. in my vast experience, those most valuable copy editors, though, haven't worked in the field because they're most comfy with their computers and don't necessarily have the right personality to do the shmoozing required to be an effective sportswriter. 8) 8) 8)

Couldn't have said it better myself...

At my joint, our top football guy could sell ice to an eskimo...and he's constantly breaking news. You have to know how to communicate. Hence the reason we enter the communication field. Not saying you have to be a used car salesman, but you gotta know how to bull**** with guys occasionally. Hang around the coaches office and just chat them up. Put the notebook away. Talk up the trainer. Talk up the secretary. You'll earn trust and break better stories.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

I wanted to post on this thread, because it's something I had to deal with early in my career.

First, I strongly believe that the idea you can't be successful in this field if you are shy/a poor small-talker is complete and utter bull****. There is one thing and one thing only that will determine your success -- your ability to do your job professionally. You can be the best small-talk artist in the free world, but if the athletes/coaches/executives you cover have no respect for the job you do, you are not going anywhere. It's amazing to see how people will chat with you once they trust your work.

I've had a couple of occasions where people I cover have said to me that I'm standoffish. I laugh when that happens, and just explain how I don't want to bother anyone and just like to be professional. I tell them that I want them to know that when I ask their time, they know it will be for something relevant and not a waste. Never once has anyone been offended by that. I've never, ever received a negative response to that.

I would say to you: the first time you see someone in a certain day, always acknowledge their presence, even if it's just a quick hello. I would also give you this advice: My first big job was in sports radio in toronto. I was a big basketball fan, and handed the beat reporting job for the Raptors, then an NBA expansion team. I was 25, and not heavily experienced. It meant all practices, all home games and a couple of road games. I had very little in common with the players. But, during training camp, I did a quick one-on-one with every player. The questions varied, some job-related, some not. (Things like: your dream car, world's best-looking woman, best road city, first impressions of canada, etc.)

It's amazing how much little material that gave me. Damon Stoudamire said he couldn't believe how much curling was on television. Once in a while, if I knew curling was on, I'd ask him if he watched. He always smiled at that, and it opened up a door. Willie Anderson made a joke about one ex-teammate said no one ever looked better missing a layup than Anderson did. So, if he missed one in a game, I'd wait a day or two, then asked what that ex-teammate would have said about the one he missed the other night. He'd always laugh.

It also helps to know a bit about their backgrounds. Villanova had a brawl one night that year, so I asked Ed Pinckney about it. He launched into 10 minutes worth of great stuff. The key is, always start with your notepad/recorder away, then midway through, say, "This stuff is so great, can I do a story on it?" Unless it's something you shouldn't be using anyway, most guys will have no problem. Also: I was planning a golf trip through a certain area recently. A player I knew from there was coming into town. So I pulled him aside quickly explained my situation. He was happy to give me 15 minutes worth of material.

Anyway, hopefully that will give you some help. You will also find that if you are good at your job, the more time you spend around the same people will make you more comfortable chatting with them.

 

[markvid]

Welcome back, Elliotte.
This place isn't complete without your contributions.

And, yes, the sarcasm font is off.

 

[busuncle]

I'll agree with Mr. Friedman here.

I used to be on a beat with a guy who was chummy with all the coaches, who constantly "bull****ted" with them, etc. Guess what? Coaches have a job to do, and they're not always thrilled when Mr. Chummy drops by to "chat." Another person on the beat was a professional, but never "chummy," and he routinely beat the other guy.

OTOH, being painfully shy is certainly a limitation, and it's something that one must get over.

EDIT: I just re-read Elliotte's post and he said it well here:

I don't want to bother anyone and just like to be professional. I tell them that I want them to know that when I ask their time, they know it will be for something relevant and not a waste. Never once has anyone been offended by that. I've never, ever received a negative response to that.

Showing you value your sources' time is a sign of professionalism, not a sign of weakness.

 

[rgd]

More important than bull****ting is showing a genuine interest in what a person does by asking thoughtful and intelligent questions.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

I would imagine it's a helpful skill on any beat, but it's really vital on baseball.

Some of the best I've seen are guys who can strike up a casual conversation in a clubhouse or dugout. If you're doing notes every day, you'll come up with valuable stuff. You'll also get good leads on off-day stories or features.

We spend a lot of time trying to get people to talk, so it's fundamental that the proverbial gift of gab would be a major asset.

Of course, we've all seen guys who overdo it and wind up chasing people away, but the good ones know how to use it to their benefit.

 

[pallister]

More important than bull****ting is showing a genuine interest in what a person does by asking thoughtful and intelligent questions.

I think I said this early in the thread; therefore, I agree.

 

[Tom Petty]

being personable enough to establish a rapport with people is an important part of the job. if you can't shmooze, you lose.

those who can't become editors/desk people. doesn't mean they don't have writing skills, but reporting well takes people skills, too. you won't get the best stories with just straight q-and-a style. trust is built through relaxed conversation. if you can't do it, it will limit how well you'll do. no ifs, and or buts. :o :o :o

yeah, that's right douchebag, if this person 'can't do it,' s/he will just become an editor and double what you make a year. sounds like a real lose-lose situation to me.

your SE deals with suits, you deal with grown men in sweatsuits. yeeeah, nice evaluation.

 

[shockey]

hey, dickass petty.

unless you failed reading comprehension, i was simply opining on a major difference between copy editors and reporters, not sports eds and reporters. although it is my experience that the vast majority of sports eds never had the writing or reporting chops to excel at that end of the deal. that's not to say that good sports eds don't have important skill sets. of course they do.

but it's also my experience that those who are top-notch writers/reporters prefer to do that rather than to spend their days in offices with the suits. if that offends, so sorry. if you make more money, god bless you. i'm not saying i could do what you do. why does it **** you off if i opine that you possibly couldn't do what i do. or be as successful doing it?

we all make career choices, based upon what we most like and what we're most good at. that's my point. and, by the way, i don't know ANY sports eds who make twice what i do. :o :o :o

 

[rgd]

More important than bull****ting is showing a genuine interest in what a person does by asking thoughtful and intelligent questions.

I think I said this early in the thread; therefore, I agree.

Do you want a prize?

 

[tmunson]

I've been shaking my head through most of this thread. I agree with Elliott, those who say you have to be a schmoozer to succeed in this business are absolutely wrong. Yes, it helps. But no, it's not the only way. As long as you get information, who cares? Some do it thru observation, others do it by asking about a player's dog. There's no right or wrong way.

The most important advice is simple: Be yourself. I can't emphasize this enough: Dont try to become an extrovert and chat people up if it doesnt fit your personality. People can see through something like that and it ususally makes for a lot of painful, awkward conversations. Most important, it's not a good way to earn a person's trust.

I've worked with (and against) people on the beat who call players by their nicknames and give them fist pounds. Is that wrong? No, because it works for them. It doesnt for me, so I stay away from it. ...

Ask good questsions, act interested, even if you're not. But also keep in mind, it's not important that these people like you. They just have to be willing to work with you. There's a big difference. If you're getting beat because a source is lying to you or withholding information, then you need to change something. But if you're feeling bad that other writers are joking around with other reporters, who cares?

 

[Tom Petty]

hey, dickass petty.

unless you failed reading comprehension, i was simply opining on a major difference between copy editors and reporters, not sports eds and reporters. although it is my experience that the vast majority of sports eds never had the writing or reporting chops to excel at that end of the deal. that's not to say that good sports eds don't have important skill sets. of course they do.

but it's also my experience that those who are top-notch writers/reporters prefer to do that rather than to spend their days in offices with the suits. if that offends, so sorry. if you make more money, god bless you. i'm not saying i could do what you do. why does it **** you off if i opine that you possibly couldn't do what i do. or be as successful doing it?

we all make career choices, based upon what we most like and what we're most good at. that's my point. and, by the way, i don't know ANY sports eds who make twice what i do. :o :o :o

this is what you said: 'those who can't become editors/desk people. doesn't mean they don't have writing skills, but reporting well takes people skills, too'

i stand behind my response.

 

[shockey]

as do i.

your responses on here are so defensive/angry/mean-spirited that it supports theories that your own people skills are quite lacking. which is fine. most suits are quite lacking in this dept. i'll stand by THAT. 8) 8) 8)

it's one of the most entertaining parts of "tabloid wars." most of the editors -- suits that i know -- just stand there nodding, doing little speaking. cracks me up.

 

[shockey]

i didn't mean those who can't become sports editors. the best sports eds were once decent writers/reporters. in my vast experience, those most valuable and under-appreciated sports copy editors, though, haven't worked in the field because they're most comfy with their computers and don't necessarily have the right personality to do the shmoozing required to be an effective sportswriter. just this man's experience.8) 8) 8)

fyi, above is what my what my clarifying post said. :o :o :o

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

The most important advice is simple: Be yourself. I can't emphasize this enough: Dont try to become an extrovert and chat people up if it doesnt fit your personality. People can see through something like that and it ususally makes for a lot of painful, awkward conversations. Most important, it's not a good way to earn a person's trust.

Yes, but if you are naturally shy, withdrawn and uncomfortable conversing with people you really don't know, you're probably not going very far in a business where it's important to elicit comment and information from people.

You can be yourself, but you really ought to work at developing a skill that's fundamental to your profession.

 

[Tom Petty]

i didn't mean those who can't become sports editors. the best sports eds were once decent writers/reporters. in my vast experience, those most valuable and under-appreciated sports copy editors, though, haven't worked in the field because they're most comfy with their computers and don't necessarily have the right personality to do the shmoozing required to be an effective sportswriter. just this man's experience.8) 8) 8)

fyi, above is what my what my clarifying post said. :o :o :o

no. 1, i don't wear a suit muchless a tie. no. 2, i responded to your original post, not what you wrote after.