This is the kind of stuff that needs to be done more often

[Elliotte Friedman]

This is what I personally believe readers/viewers want more of. It can be positive or negative or both, but they love reading about the people as much as they love reading about the games.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/2010/12/ralph_friedgen_and_a_remembran.html

Brilliant work, Kevin.

 

[AD]

that was just flat-out superb.

 

[Colton]

Damn fine story, Kevin.

 

[Double Down]

In the interest of discussing the craft, why does this story work?

Or, why might it not work?

Is was Elliott said feasible? Could journalists write more stories like this? Or does it require a willing subject?

Fire away.

 

[imjustagirl]

DD,

I'll take a stab, from my own personal point of view. It works, for me, because as Elliotte said people want to know about the people. They want the peeks behind the curtain. In the instances in which we, as journalists, get to peek behind there, they want to know what we see. And to be able to tell an instance behind a story that ran in the past that helps explain who Friedgen is...that's what they want. Even if they don't know it.

But based by the comments on that blog, I think at least some of them are feasible.

Now, could people write more of those? Yes. But most likely it's better off like this: feature in the paper, further info in the blog. Because shrinking newshole is going to limit the amount of story someone can tell in print.

But yes. I think it worked, and I think it can work. Fans can watch the games and tell you what DB is blowing what coverages and why the second-string running back is second string. But they don't know as much about the people under the team colors as they could ever possibly want to.

 

[SixToe]

I'd rather read well-crafted, interesting and long stories like this in the paper than some of the **** that's published today.

If editors would commit to doing them, I believe the stories would be well-received.

 

[silent_h]

I concur with everyone else. Well done, Kevin.

That said ...

... a piece like this also leaves me feeling frustrated and sad. Indirectly, it speaks to the economy of our business.

If Kevin didn't already have a wealth of experience and knowledge of Fridge to draw upon -- if he didn't already have all of his reporting done, so to speak -- would many news organizations give him the time and money needed to find this kind of story?

Could many news organizations afford that, even if they wanted to?

From the Sun's perspective, a story like this works because: (a) Kevin can write it out of his head, at no cost save the time it takes to craft a well-written story; (b) the paper can post it on the web with almost no production, printing or photo cost; (c) it's something readers will like, because it is good.

In essence, the cost-benefit ratio is very favorable.

Now imagine if Kevin was asked to write something like this, but he had to do all of this reporting from scratch. He has to get access to Fridge. Lots of it. He has to access the people around Fridge. Lots of of it. Again, that takes time. Money. It's risky, too -- maybe you don't get the material you need for a truly good piece. (The material, as much as the writing, is what made Kevin's piece sing). And what's the reward for all that time and effort?

Probably about as many page hits as, say, a news item on Brett Favre's ankle. Less hits than a Deadspin salacious blind item.

Now, consider: you're a economically strapped news organization that's bleeding print circulation and watching your longtime business model implode. You're making pennies on web advertising where you used to make dollars on print ads.

Honestly, what are you going to do?

Of COURSE readers love pieces like these. They just don't love them enough to pay any sort of viable premium for them. (Does the New Yorker even make money? I know the Atlantic does -- but only because they shifted their entire business model toward profiting via shorter, opinion-based web content).

Costly, time-consuming long form narrative journalism only makes sense as a subsidized loss leader. And that's the thing that makes me frustrated and sad.

 

[Boom_70]

Good story - I think it really draws readers in when writers reveal their fragile side. Seems like at some point in his life he was traumatized by a stern father or football coach or perhaps both.

He seemed to be looking for some sort of kinship with Ralph and Ralph was not giving an inch.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I can't say what it works. Just why it works for me.

1) I know a bit about the coach already and a small bit about the writer.
2) It's a topic I am supremely interested in.
3) It's an easy read, even though it isn't a quick read. That is hard to pull off. Kevin can flat out write.
4) You get the sense he is very sympathetic toward Friedgen, yet he managed to keep that on the sideline and explain why it's understandable that he was forced out in the current landscape of college football. With a lesser writer, that might have come off as equivocation -- the typical, "I am a newspaper writer, so to be 'objective' I have to find an opposing side to the story," which I hate. Sometimes there isn't an opposing side. In this case, he managed to fulfill that "requirement" without forcing in an opposing side.
5) Loved the kicker at the end about Fridge not quitting.

It was just a well-written piece about something that interested me. Not sure I can analyze it any better than that.

 

[Double Down]

I always wonder, with some stories, what makes a personal connection work? And what goes wrong when the writer is in the story and it doesn't work? Is it tone? Is it taste?

For instance, Joe Posnanski writes so eloquently on his blog about personal things. We didn't really talk about it much (I think I saw it linked on the Springsteen thread) by Posnanski's post about why Darkness on the Edge of Town is so personal to him was, to me, one of the best things I've read this year.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/11/promise.html

And his piece about Harry Potter and his daughters was also wonderful.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-chamber-of-secrets.html


But we have a handful of people here who are consistently annoyed whenever a writer puts himself/herself into the story. Simmons is flogged repeatedly for this. Wright Thompson too. We're not the story. That's drilled into us early.

But at the same time, can't the writer's connection to the story enhance the telling? Obviously in cases like Posnanski's pieces, there is no story if it's not personal. That's why those piece are on his blog, although I'd argue they could run anywhere and connect with people.

I don't know that there is a correct answer. I just think it makes for an interesting question.

 

[The Big Ragu]

DD, It's a matter of degree for me. In many cases, I'd say the writer has no place writing himself in. But, 1) As long as the writer doesn't become too much of the focus of the story--and in this case I left thinking about Friedgen, not Kevin, and 2) In cases like this, it's almost impossible to write the blog entry without Kevin having inserted himself. It's a part of the story/remembrance. Could he have done it and included less of himself? I guess. But as long as he doesn't take it too far, I'm personally OK with it. I think Wright Thompson has taken some heat on here for that because (and this is my guess), he has gratuitously placed himself in a thing or two, in some people's opinion. It rubs some people wrong.

But if it is an easy read and the writer clearly belongs in the piece, why not? John Ed Bradley is one of my favorites. He hardly ever gets fawned over on this board, the way some of the "board favorites" do. There's something about his easy writing style, and his ability to see nuances that really works for me. And because of his experiences, and the fact that he often writes about topics he has direct experience with, he has developed a good style in which he can write himself into something (and even make himself the focus) and do it in a way that doesn't seem gratuitous. He's even used it to bring out poignant sentiments about others.

For me, there is no hard and fast rule on it. You either do it, and it really belongs in there, and it just works. Or you do it and it's forced and it bombs.

 

[Dick Whitman]

DD, for what it is worth, I am firmly in your camp when it comes to this "debate." It is funny to me that you bring up Posnanski. A few years ago, I had finished reading his book about Buck O'Neill and their travels together. I was raving about it to my sports editor, who was firmly in the other side of the "debate."

"That doesn't make any sense to me," my editor told me. "If I want to read about Buck O'Neill, I want to read about Buck O'Neill, not about Joe Posnanski and Buck O'Neill."

Not that I'm any great shakes as a writer, but I was still thinking, "Man, you don't get it!"

To me, used correctly, first-person is a device that gives the story narrative horsepower that it otherwise would not or might not sustain. Memoir is obviously popular today in literature, and I don't think that's just because people love salacious confessionals. I think that first-person is very relateable, very raw, and very story/narrative-centered. Modern readers respond to that for some reason. It's tactile in a way that third-person is not and cannot be.

Granted, sometimes it can be nauseating - something like "Eat, Pray, Love" comes to mind. But, to me, this kind of first-person narrative has its origins in the travel writing genre, which has a long and rich history as a legitimate literary vehicle.

Maybe it really connects with people in sports because it has the illusion of breaking down the barrier between reader and writer in a way that modern readers appreciate. They don't want distance. They want immediacy. This puts them into the story. This is a way to deliver the immediacy of story that film is able to without putting up artificial constructs ("... a reporter asked Friedgen why ...") that often clunk up a piece.

EDIT: Just saw the mention of John Ed Bradley. His memoir, "It Never Rains in Tiger Stadium," was absolutely brilliant. Might have actually been the best sports book of the last decade. This board has always needed to expand its reach beyond Chris Jones, Jeff MacGregor, Charles Pierce, Wright Thompson, S.L. Price, and Gary Smith. There is more reverence to go around. And many, many more writers to learn from, sports and otherwise.

EDIT 2: An alternative name for this thread could be, "This is the kind of SportsJournalists.com thread that needs to be done more often"

 

[Double Down]

I've always been a big fan of Bradley. I think that, for those of us who take writing seriously, there are a lot of writers regularly read and discussed, but it can be tough to discuss writing here. I know it makes me weary sometimes.

I remember reading this Bradley story a long time ago about Ricky Williams and thinking it was a really daring approach with the story. It's essentially a back-and-forth between Williams and Bradley, although Bradley is writing in the second person, and I think it captures what Ricky was like at that point in his life pretty accurately. Angry, unhappy, manic, sad.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1018591/1/index.htm

 

[Dick Whitman]

I've always been a big fan of Bradley. I think that, for those of us who take writing seriously, there are a lot of writers regularly read and discussed, but it can be tough to discuss writing here. I know it makes me weary sometimes.

I remember reading this Bradley story a long time ago about Ricky Williams and thinking it was a really daring approach with the story. It's essentially a back-and-forth between Williams and Bradley, although Bradley is writing in the second person, and I think it captures what Ricky was like at that point in his life pretty accurately. Angry, unhappy, manic, sad.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1018591/1/index.htm

There is some great insight in "It Never Rains in Tiger Stadium" about becoming a writer. At one point, Bradley is assigned to cover a football game for the New York Times. But he can't bring himself to do it.

He says something along the lines of, "I'm just not that kind of writer."

As a former beat writer who was positively not cut out for it, that moment was poignant to me, although a lot of civilian readers probably couldn't relate. But in a world in which I constantly was asked about what it was like to have such a "dream job," it was awesome to read that someone like Bradley related. Bradley had two "dream" positions - player on LSU and sports writer with what seemed to be his pick of gigs. But neither satisfied him. And that didn't mean he was ungrateful, which I always told myself I was for wanting to write columns and long-form and non-sports stories.

Anyway, sorry for the threadjack. Guess I just really loved that book.

 

[playthrough]

When I read that, all I could think of was "how many local beat writers would get one-on-one time like that with a big-time coach nowadays?" Not an office interview, but a road trip. Not too darned many.

 

[Boom_70]

I echo the sentiments on John Ed Bradley. "It Never Rains In Tiger Stadium" is a great book. His stories about his coach Charlie Mclendon and Bear Bryant are fabulous.

I always seem to be drawn in by the ex football player turned writer angst genre. You could also add Rick Telander to this list and perhaps make Pat Conroy an honorary member.

All clearly show what a lasting impression that a coach can have on a young persons life.

 

[Alma]

First of all, the original Friedgen story was pretty terrific, aside from the final words "let his eyes fill with tears." That's called crying, and "cried" was the right word to choose.

I thought the blog recollection was good, although the parallel between big news holes and a Maryland football coach were a little forced for my taste. It's a perfect fit for a blog, and it's that little extra peek or insight that, one day, people will pay for or some advertiser will sponsor. A personal blog on a newspaper site is precisely where a reporter should "unpack the notebook" and let the reader see something that maybe didn't fit perfectly into a story.

Here's someone who I think does it well and consistently. If you read several entries, you'll notice it's a lot of stuff that doesn't easily fit into a story, but is a compilation of thoughts and observations that goes into a reporter's daily beat life. Now, I don't give two blue poops about this particular team, but I'll tell you: A fan of Missouri football would know them - and the reporter - damn well after a season of reading this:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/

And here's an entry to give you a sense of how it works:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/2010/dec/17/mu-coaches-reeled-in-richardson-with-a-hammer/

 

[buckweaver]

DD, It's a matter of degree for me. In many cases, I'd say the writer has no place writing himself in. But, 1) As long as the writer doesn't become too much of the focus of the story--and in this case I left thinking about Friedgen, not Kevin, and 2) In cases like this, it's almost impossible to write the blog entry without Kevin having inserted himself. It's a part of the story/remembrance. Could he have done it and included less of himself? I guess. But as long as he doesn't take it too far, I'm personally OK with it. I think Wright Thompson has taken some heat on here for that because (and this is my guess), he has gratuitously placed himself in a thing or two, in some people's opinion. It rubs some people wrong.

Part of the reason Kevin's piece worked for me and Wright's on Cleveland didn't work was because Kevin revealed something about himself here, which made his insertion into the narrative essential.

The reason I often have distaste for Wright Thompson's first-person stories is because there's rarely any depth to his character in the story, at least in my opinion. He just doesn't reveal that much about himself. Why should I care what he's doing? Why should I care why he's there? I don't know anything about him, at least from reading it. (His Masters story was a notable exception.)

When I read Posnanski -- especially the two entries DD linked to above -- I learn so much about him (or at least he makes me feel like I do.) And his stories are interesting. There's some insight to his personality.

Two of my favorite baseball beat writers today are Dave O'Brien (Atlanta) and C. Trent Rosecrans (Cincinnati-based). During the course of a season, both of them are personable, humorous and engaging in their first-person pieces on their blogs. That's what makes it work so well.

A lot of writers can't pull that off.

 

[old_tony]

I concur with everyone else. Well done, Kevin.

That said ...

... a piece like this also leaves me feeling frustrated and sad. Indirectly, it speaks to the economy of our business.

If Kevin didn't already have a wealth of experience and knowledge of Fridge to draw upon -- if he didn't already have all of his reporting done, so to speak -- would many news organizations give him the time and money needed to find this kind of story?

Could many news organizations afford that, even if they wanted to?

From the Sun's perspective, a story like this works because: (a) Kevin can write it out of his head, at no cost save the time it takes to craft a well-written story; (b) the paper can post it on the web with almost no production, printing or photo cost; (c) it's something readers will like, because it is good.

In essence, the cost-benefit ratio is very favorable.

Now imagine if Kevin was asked to write something like this, but he had to do all of this reporting from scratch. He has to get access to Fridge. Lots of it. He has to access the people around Fridge. Lots of of it. Again, that takes time. Money. It's risky, too -- maybe you don't get the material you need for a truly good piece. (The material, as much as the writing, is what made Kevin's piece sing). And what's the reward for all that time and effort?

Probably about as many page hits as, say, a news item on Brett Favre's ankle. Less hits than a Deadspin salacious blind item.

Now, consider: you're a economically strapped news organization that's bleeding print circulation and watching your longtime business model implode. You're making pennies on web advertising where you used to make dollars on print ads.

Honestly, what are you going to do?

Of COURSE readers love pieces like these. They just don't love them enough to pay any sort of viable premium for them. (Does the New Yorker even make money? I know the Atlantic does -- but only because they shifted their entire business model toward profiting via shorter, opinion-based web content).

Costly, time-consuming long form narrative journalism only makes sense as a subsidized loss leader. And that's the thing that makes me frustrated and sad.

In reality, this piece is only possible from the experience of having taken that ride and spent that day. And newspapers are getting rid of people with that kind of experience because they cost too much. Stories like this will eventually dry up and completely go away from newspapers and be available only on sites such as ESPN.com -- which seems able to hire so many of the top writers. But the top writers that are being hired by ESPN make up just a small percentage of the really good and capable writers that are out there.

There's great value in "having been there" that editors today completely blow off. Today they value attitude over aptitude and experience. They all are looking for the next "new thing" writer -- some kid who shoots video with his iPhone and posts crappy interviews on their website because their "next new thing" is in reality at best a so-so reporter. They think they're saving or re-inventing the industry. In reality they're destroying it. As said above, people want good stories about people. But storytellers aren't valued. Just bells and whistles.

 

[Dog8Cats]

Well, those are about the most intelligent and mature questions I've seen raised on this forum about a topic such as this ...

And (I think sadly), as you raise them in such an intelligent and mature way, a way that doesn't translate to online traffic, I wonder how much impact your commitment to analyzing this piece will ever have. (Sigh.)

I always wonder, with some stories, what makes a personal connection work? And what goes wrong when the writer is in the story and it doesn't work? Is it tone? Is it taste?

For instance, Joe Posnanski writes so eloquently on his blog about personal things. We didn't really talk about it much (I think I saw it linked on the Springsteen thread) by Posnanski's post about why Darkness on the Edge of Town is so personal to him was, to me, one of the best things I've read this year.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/11/promise.html

And his piece about Harry Potter and his daughters was also wonderful.

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-chamber-of-secrets.html


But we have a handful of people here who are consistently annoyed whenever a writer puts himself/herself into the story. Simmons is flogged repeatedly for this. Wright Thompson too. We're not the story. That's drilled into us early.

But at the same time, can't the writer's connection to the story enhance the telling? Obviously in cases like Posnanski's pieces, there is no story if it's not personal. That's why those piece are on his blog, although I'd argue they could run anywhere and connect with people.

I don't know that there is a correct answer. I just think it makes for an interesting question.