Why the KC Star shines

[The_Plan]

Like many of you, I read just about all of the national newspapers daily -- from coast-to-coast. And I'm amazed, just amazed, that the small-market KC Star wipes the floor with the bigger market papers (such as the Sun-Times, the Free Press, and probably even the Dallas Morning News) ...

To me, the reason is balance.

They've got two outstanding columnists -- Whitlock and Posnanski. It is refreshing to see them both on the front page of the sports section. Why? Because they are going to get two completely different reactions out of you.

Whitlock's column will make you angry, pissed, annoyed ... or, it will make you look at something from a different perspective. It will challenge "popular belief." It will make you think. Then, it will make you discuss!

Posnanski's column will probably make you laugh, or in some cases, cry! He's an unbelievable writer, and after reading his columns I find myself saying, "oh yeah ... why didn't I think of that?" Sometimes he makes you realize something that should seem so simple!

Regardless, the tone of these two guys has perfect balance. Whitlock (more often than not) is negative; always looking for something to bash. Posnanski is always trying to find light at the end of the tunnel. A glimmer of hope  (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/columnists/joe_posnanski/14249218.htm.)

The rest of the staff, from Jeffrey Flanagan to Blair Kerkhoff, to a pair of exceptional beat writers (Bob Dutton and Adam Teicher) -- aren't necessarily GREAT writers, but they are GREAT reporters. And in my opinion, that's one of the problems we have in the sports media today. The writers do a heck of a job writing, but where's the reporting? Why are we always looking for more after reading the column/article? Why are we always stuck saying, "so what?"

Anyways, that's just my take. I love the LA Times and the Washington Post ... I do enjoy some of the writers at the Sun-Times and the Philly Enquirer. But again, I don't see a whole lot of balance at many of the national papers today. I see too many Jay Mariotti's who try to put themselve in the public spotlight, or try to self-promote or just attack something till it's dead in the face. To me, any sports section will only be as good as the lead columnists. I think KC has two of the best.

just my opinion.

 

[estreetband75]

Thanks for checking in, Mike Fannin.

Seriously, I agree that KC has a really solid section although their 10-day epic on the Big 12 At 10 left a little to be desired.

 

[85bears]

estreet, you mentioned their Big 12 series. Maybe it wasn't a grand slam, but the fact is that this paper thinks of those kinds of projects and carries them out. I suggest things like that at my shop and I get blank stares from everyone. Another reason I am, for the first time, seriously considering an eventual move into the management sector. I see too many SEs that don't push their sections to the heights that Fannin does. Too many that don't seem to have a vision beyond the next day's paper. KC has a vision.

 

[DyePack]

If you think kicking the asses of the Sun-Times and the Free Press is an accomplishment, then you should drink a little. [/halftomcruise]

 

[FreddiePatek]

Jesus Christ, another KC lovefest thread? Go ahead, fire away. I'm sure there's enough room for everyone to climb inside Mike Fannin's bunghole. Dig in. :-*

 

[Breakyoself]

how small-market is KC?

 

[tonysoprano]

I admire the hell out of the Star. Writers get to write, and as cliched as it sounds, it seems they're put in a position to flourish and succeed.

 

[shotglass]

What I see are first-rate columnists on the wire every night, what looks to be solid game coverage of big events.

What I don't know, because I never see a full edition, is just as important to me -- do they do the details right? Is there something for everyone? Correct balance of agate versus copy? Depth of coverage of lesser events?

Before I make an overall judgment, I'd have to know that.

 

[DyePack]

What I see are first-rate columnists on the wire every night, what looks to be solid game coverage of big events.

What I don't know, because I never see a full edition, is just as important to me -- do they do the details right? Is there something for everyone? Correct balance of agate versus copy? Depth of coverage of lesser events?

Before I make an overall judgment, I'd have to know that.

...

 

[FreddiePatek]

What, precisely, has the Star done in the last few years that qualifies as hard-hitting journalism? The Latin American baseball stuff was nice, but hardly hard-hitting. The Royals have been monstrous, but outside Whitlock's sarcasm and Pos' love letters and "he's nice but he must go" stances, I can't recall anything. I remember a long while back when Steve Rock was sticking it hard to the NCAA every week, but he's not there anymore.

I say this not to be snarky. I really want to know ... what has the Star done that puts in on par with BALCO or Diploma mills or the like?

 

[tonysoprano]

Look, I could give a damn about the hard-hitting ****. Everyone else can get on the soapbox, cry for more investigative stuff. It

All I know is Poz has kind of considered the best columnist on this board, he's won his share of awards, and Wright had his fair share of kick-ass takeout features. And Jason's columns stir up so much emotion, we spend pages upon pages ranting about what he wrote (sign of a good columnist).

For me, that gives the Star all the cred it needs.

 

[dooley_womack1]

In all fairness, we would spend hours and hours talking about any columnist who would come here with his/her real name and talk about him/herself constantly. That said, the Star does some decent stuff. Their design is overrated, and their Missouri U. coverage is very average ([/fanboy]). And I don't know if this is still the case, but they used to get a ton of space. They do have some nice stories (not referring to the one where no attempt was made to talk to the subject), and try some different things. They do totally smash the Post-Dispatch, quality-wise.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

Hard hitting? Well the Star was one of the first newspapers I remember getting a big league player to go on record about using steroids. The paper also wrote about baseball's amphetimine problem a few years ago, long before Jason Grimsley became a household name. Jason King and Jason Whitlock won APSE for investigative reporting this year after the JR Giddens stabbing and even though Whitlock's columns on the subject were ridiculous the leg work done by both guys was outstanding. That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

DeArmond got his ass kicked on all the controversy at Mizzou, but he's far from the best on that staff.

 

[spnited]

I will preface this by saying that I never see hard copy of the KC Star, I read some stuff online on an irregular basis and I am NOT knocking the quality of its writing .. although I think Whitlock writes stuff just to stir **** and Poz, as good as he is, can be a little too happy face too often.

Why does the KC Star shine?
Because:
-- It has only two professional sports franchises to cover...the worst team in baseball and a mediocre football team
-- It's only other "beats" are colleges
--it appears to have a reasonably large staff for having so few real beats to cover
--It has a seeming abundance of space for so few major beats
--it doesn't ever have to worry about the NBA or NHL or the cost of travelling with those beats, so it has people and money to spend on things like a Latin American baseball series
--it is in a small market and has no real competition
--I doubt it gives the readers what they want. It gives the readers what it wants to give them because the readers have no alternative

None of this means it isn't a good paper. But you can do a lot of things with those resources in that market that papers in cities with 5, 6, 8 pro franchises can't do, especially when you're the only game in town.

Every bit of this also applies to Orlando...except there's only 1 (mediocre) pro franchise there.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

I will preface this by saying that I never see hard copy of the KC Star, I read some stuff online on an irregular basis and I am NOT knocking the quality of its writing .. although I think Whitlock writes stuff just to stir **** and Poz, as good as he is, can be a little too happy face too often.

Why does the KC Star shine?
Because:
-- It has only two professional sports franchises to cover...the worst team in baseball and a mediocre football team
-- It's only other "beats" are colleges
--it appears to have a reasonably large staff for having so few real beats to cover
--It has a seeming abundance of space for so few major beats
--it doesn't ever have to worry about the NBA or NHL or the cost of travelling with those beats, so it has people and money to spend on things like a Latin American baseball series
--it is in a small market and has no real competition
--I doubt it gives the readers what they want. It gives the readers what it wants to give them because the readers have no alternative

None of this means it isn't a good paper. But you can do a lot of things with those resources in that market that papers in cities with 5, 6, 8 pro franchises can't do, especially when you're the only game in town.

Every bit of this also applies to Orlando...except there's only 1 (mediocre) pro franchise there.

Some good points, but I don't agree with all of it.

-- How does the Royals and Chiefs not winning titles make them any easier to cover? It doesn't mean Kansas Citians are any less interested or demanding in the coverage.

--I don't know why college beats require quotation marks. There are three big-time programs in their coverage area and KC is insanely interested in college sports, especially basketball.

-- I don't agree with your definition of "real beats" but you're right that having an adequate sized staff and lots of space helps make it a great section. Other papers would do well to copy that.

-- Do you think that if and when a winter team moves into the new Sprint Center it will hurt the overall section? I don't know. It could because they would certainly have to devote resources to it. They might not be sending a writer to Pennsylvania in the future to do a feature on a horse if they also have to send writer(s) to Calgary for a hockey game. At the same time though papers in bigger cities with four or five pro teams probably have more revenue coming in because of higher circulation and ad sales. Does that provide for the travel budget?

-- What makes a small market? If a city of 2 million is small market then what is Rocky Mount, N.C.?

-- There isn't really much competition on the Chiefs and Royals, but the KU, K-State and Mizzou beats are highly competitive. Shouldn't competition make the paper better?

-- I'd say it gives readers what they want. Intense coverage of the Chiefs and Royals. The paper holds David Glass and Carl Peterson accountable for their idiocy, which is something the readers want. The readers also want lots of college coverage, even if you don't think it's a real beat. Just because St. Johns or Seton Hall hoops only demands a few inches in the New York times it doesn't mean KU basketball doesn't require 20 inches a day in the KC Star.

 

[FreddiePatek]

Some good points, but I don't agree with all of it.

-- How does the Royals and Chiefs not winning titles make them any easier to cover? It doesn't mean Kansas Citians are any less interested or demanding in the coverage.

-- Do you think that if and when a winter team moves into the new Sprint Center it will hurt the overall section? I don't know. It could because they would certainly have to devote resources to it. They might not be sending a writer to Pennsylvania in the future to do a feature on a horse if they also have to send writer(s) to Calgary for a hockey game. At the same time though papers in bigger cities with four or five pro teams probably have more revenue coming in because of higher circulation and ad sales. Does that provide for the travel budget?

-- I'd say it gives readers what they want. Intense coverage of the Chiefs and Royals. The paper holds David Glass and Carl Peterson accountable for their idiocy, which is something the readers want. The readers also want lots of college coverage, even if you don't think it's a real beat. Just because St. Johns or Seton Hall hoops only demands a few inches in the New York times it doesn't mean KU basketball doesn't require 20 inches a day in the KC Star.

Oh, come on, covering losing teams is way more interesting and lends itself to more investigation and calling out than a winning team would. And as for holding David Glass and Carl Peterson accountable? Please. Whitlock's columns are the only evidence of that. Where was the investigation of Glass' original purchase of the Royals? When Wal-Mart was getting crucified for illegal labor practices, where were was the Star? I don't know if there was a baseball story to do on that subject, but we'll never know since the Star didn't lift a finger.

Fair point on the Giddens stuff, though. That was good.

And the ongoing Arena/Stadium coverage? News side provided the most insight.

I fully agree the Star's staff, virtually from A to Z, can write the hell out of even an egg drop story. Their reporting? Average. And what is this steroids story the Star had before anyone else? Just an honest question because it's quite possible I did forget. If you're talking about Segui, they weren't the first to report that.

 

[The_Plan]

I fully agree the Star's staff, virtually from A to Z, can write the hell out of even an egg drop story. Their reporting? Average. And what is this steroids story the Star had before anyone else? Just an honest question because it's quite possible I did forget. If you're talking about Segui, they weren't the first to report that.

This is what he's referring to: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-03-13-giambi-brother-steroids_x.htm

Jeremy Giambi admitted to using steroids.

Also, this year -- Mike Sweeney admitted that players used steroids on the '99 team, as he told the Star and radio.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/baseball/mlb/kansas_city_royals/13623737.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_kansas_city_royals

 

[FreddiePatek]

Ah yes, Jeremy Giambi. That bat master. That was just this year and well after Balco implicated his bro and provided the footprint. ... I was thinking more along the lines of Caminiti's admission.

I may be wrong, but wasn't that a little more of the Star being in the right place at the right time? Of course, that's how most big breaks happen. Not saying there's anything wrong with that. Caminiti's situation might have been roughly the same circumstances, I suppose.

 

[estreetband75]

estreet, you mentioned their Big 12 series. Maybe it wasn't a grand slam, but the fact is that this paper thinks of those kinds of projects and carries them out. I suggest things like that at my shop and I get blank stares from everyone. Another reason I am, for the first time, seriously considering an eventual move into the management sector. I see too many SEs that don't push their sections to the heights that Fannin does. Too many that don't seem to have a vision beyond the next day's paper. KC has a vision.

Agreed, many papers wouldn't pool the resources to take on an ambitious project as the Big 12 at 10. ... My expectations for that series were too high, I guess.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The paper also wrote about baseball's amphetimine problem a few years ago, long before Jason Grimsley became a household name.

Um, Jim Bouton wrote about baseball's amphetamine problem. In 1970.