Simmons on the Decline of Sports Journalism
by Freneau on Apr 22, 2009 3:18 PM EDT
Email
PrintBill Simmons had an interesting aside -- isn't that where he's at his best? -- in his KG column:
What remains amazing was the media's willingness to accept Boston's strategy that could only be described as "stringing everyone along." Garnett didn't have an identifiable injury. This wasn't a case of "he tore his MCL, he'll be back in four weeks" or even "he's got some bone chips in there, we might have to clean them out." Really, the dude just has old knees. He put too many miles on them and played with too much intensity for too long. When the knees go, they go. That's just the law of the NBA. It's as simple as that.
There's a hidden sub-story lurking here: It involves the fall of newspapers, lack of access and the future of reporting, not just with sports but with everything. I grew up reading Bob Ryan, who covered the Celtics for the Boston Globe and remains the best basketball writer alive to this day. Back in the 1970s and early '80s, he was overqualified to cover the team. In 1980, he would have sniffed out the B.S. signs of this KG story, kept pursuing it, kept writing about it, kept working connections and eventually broken it. True, today's reporters don't get the same access Ryan had, but let's face it: If 1980 Bob Ryan was covering the Celtics right now, ESPN or someone else would lure him away. And that goes for the editors, too. The last two sports editors during the glory years of the Globe's sports section were Vince Doria and Don Skwar ... both of whom currently work for ESPN.
For the past few years, as newspapers got slowly crushed by myriad factors, a phalanx of top writers and editors fled for the greener pastures of the Internet. The quality of nearly every paper suffered, as did morale. Just two weeks ago, reports surfaced that the New York Times Company (which owns the Globe) was demanding $20 million in union concessions or it'd shut down the Globe completely. I grew up dreaming of writing a sports column for the Globe; now the paper might be gone before I turn 40. It's inconceivable.
A few quick hits:
- You sometimes see reference to the "East Coast Media" in sports discussions, an idea that in New York, Boston, and maybe Philly, the local media is much more aggressive, combative, negative, etc. I wonder if that is a) just wrong or b) not true anymore, especially in Boston. Boston teams have won something like 15 championships in the last decade, which may have permanently altered the media landscape (and fan attitude) in the city.
- I don't necessarily buy the ESPN-love in the snippet above. ESPN is killing sports journalism as much as anything else by making columnists TV-talking heads. I know nothing about their behind the page staff, but regarding writers, their strategy is personality-driven. When was the last time ESPN hired a true baseball reporter? (Non-steroids guys from SF division.)
- Can you think of a similar KC based-story? I really can't, not on this magnitude. I think the Star is great. Nevertheless, on a smaller scale, there always seems to be little stories that remain hazy regarding the Royals. As an example, did Dayton Moore really have nothing to do with the Hochevar-year draft? Was he making picks for the Braves, etc? Or more recently, to borrow from the excellent fanpost today, why is Brayan Pena on the roster? What do you think? On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the local coverage of the Royals? How hard/secretive do you think the Royals are?
- I hardly ever agree with Simmons, analysis-wise on baseball, but think he's good on basketball and ok on the NFL. I do think he's a great writer, who basically invented a new style that's all his own, and along the way had a number of doors in Hollywood opened to him. He's also a self-made man who never misses a chance to remind the Boston Globe that they passed on him... isn't that what we all dream about?
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
similar KC-based stories
—what is the deal with those necklaces?
—what is Ken Harvey up to these days?
—Dayton Moore: better baseball man, family man, or churchman?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
the Star is great
I think this is an, ahem, exaggeration.
"I'll be the first one to tell you, Don't follow me. I'll let you down. Follow Jesus." Trey Hillman
OK, got it.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
The star routinely wins awards for the best sports coverage in the nation
I don’t have the data in front of me, but I don’t disagree with that.
I’d give The Star a 9/10.
I don't even know what the KG story is.
The Star is the opposite of the Globe in that JoPo and Whitlock are likely the only writers keeping the Star alive.
I think this is a complicated issue. On the one hand, does anyone really care if the Star has 1980 Bob Ryan investigating the true reason Hochevar was sent to the minors? I don’t think too many people care. On the other hand, if all the Star does is write the company line, eventually people don’t care about paying to read the Star.
In any event, now we have blogs for this stuff. Bloggers don’t have access, but pretty soon there won’t be any newspapers and someone will be given access. And I don’t perceive access as adding much value, since the guys with access don’t divulge anything (for fear of losing access). JoPo and Whitlock are really just bloggers who get press passes and haven’t been laid off yet.
I’m a little worried about the consequences for our democracy if there’s no organized media to question things, but it’s not as if the media actually contsrains government actors now.
I wonder what’s so great about working for ESPN. Putting on make-up all day and having fake arguments about Terrell Owens with Woody Paige and Skip Bayless? That can’t be too fun for old men like Ryan, or even Bill Simmons.
What's so great about working for ESPN?
The check, I would imagine. And sitting around in a chair having fake arguments with other blowhard old men is definitely easier (and probably more fun for most of them) than being on a beat, sitting on the phone all day making calls to any and every source you can think of, pounding the pavement by driving out to the same stadium every day to spar with a coach or GM who acts like he’s being cross-examined in the Nuremberg trials. Actual reporting is hard, and you apparently don’t get paid as much to do it.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m a little worried about the consequences for our democracy
Good point. I find it ironic that as the internet has granted access to almost all knowledge on the planet, it is also somewhat responsible for killing off the means for uncovering that knowledge (i.e. newspapers).
Blogs have supplanted the press media as the dominant medium, which is somewhat troublesome considering the parasitical nature of blogging — it depends on newspapers as one of its primary source for information. There are some blogs that are exceptions, of course, where you see actual journalism/reporting occuring, but on the whole blogs are severely dependent on the work of “real” reporters.
As a result, I think we’re going to see one of three things happen:
1. More and more websites are going to move to a pay-per-view format
2. We’ll see an increase in citizen-journalists — guys that report as a hobby, supported by other means
3. We’ll see a plunge into ignorance
Most likely, we’ll see a combination of the three events. But the main point remains that we could be in trouble as a society. Blogs are great in that the serve as a check against lazy reporting, etc — they are not so great if they destroy reporting altogether. And while it doesn’t matter so much if we don’t know about the nature of Garnett’s injury or Pena’s inclusion on a roster, it can be extremely toxic if we don’t have the fourth estate providing a check on government and corporate actions. The days of Woodward and Bernstein might be over, if they weren’t already.
But we’ll still have entertainment news, though.
I think newspapers and blogs can co-exist
Each does a different function. Newspapers report, blogs provide opinion. I think newspapers need to get out of the opinion business. Have a reader forum if you want, but I would bet the columnists are some of the biggest salaries on staff.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
3. We’ll see a plunge into ignorance
We aren’t already?
===
the discussion of news coverage breaks down into local and national papers… nearly all local papers can’t really cover the national news with much depth anyway… so its just an issue of local/state coverage and how valuable that can be and other ways to provide it
i mean, absolute ignorance
there’s still some valuable reporting out there, you just have to root around to find it
absolute ignorance would be
even worse than the 90% ignorance we already have, but I have faith that ABSOLUTE ignorance is unattainable.
and I’m aware that ignorance by definition has many caveats
I am absolutely ignorant regarding most of the music that my kids are absolutely not ignorant of. They are absolutely ignorant regarding MLB.
MF'ing six consecutive GIDP's gave me aneurisms
You don't need absolute ignorance.
Just 51% ignorance. Then the ignorant can elect pop media driven celebrities into positions of power without critical examination. I wonder how far away from that we are . . . . .
although I agree on the basic outlines
there’s no coincidence that most of the “journalism is essential to democracy!” copy/hysteria is generated by… journalists
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Our country was founded
Before the NY Times was even around! How was democracy possible back then?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Nobody wants to be an actual reporter anymore
That’s the problem. All the best ones (or anyone with even a glimmer of potential) are trying to have the “coolest” blogs or sites, so they can get the most hits, so their popularity or “marketability” will increase to the point that they can join the “Worldwide Leader” and have their own show, or be a regular Sportscenter contributor, and do a regular, nationwide radio show circuit, and record regular podcasts, and do public appearances, and become big-money “motivational” speakers or entertainers at corporate meetings or functions at $10,000 a pop, plus they can also use all those opportunities plug their latest book, which is a 150-page fluff piece that is essentially nothing more than a bad conglomeration of their best blog posts over the past year or so.
Most of them are trying to be nothing more than their own little independent, sports entertainment industries. Meanwhile, actual reporting becomes nothing more than just relaying information once the team’s press release or the agent’s predetermined and perfectly-planned leak goes to whichever reporter writes the best stuff about him or takes him out to dinner, drinks, and golf the most.
Very few media members actually investigate issues and write good, thoughtful stories with any frequency anymore.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
Local coverage
Depends on who it is. I think Sam Mellinger generally does a very good job. Bob Dutton is pretty much a mouthpiece for the Royals.
The TV guys are a big fail, but I would imagine that’s true for most markets.
I think the radio guys, both 610 and 810 are pretty decent, if for no other reason than they have so many hours to fill and have more time and resources to dig into stories a bit deeper.
Royals-related stories I wish were covered a bit more:
-Does David Glass really have a requirement that if he sells the ballclub, he cannot profit off the sale of the club? Wouldn’t that dissuade him from investing his capital into the ballclub?
-Has Jose Guillen been a clubhouse cancer?
-Seriously, why didn’t Trey bring in Soria?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Soren Petro has been on this issue:
Does David Glass really have a requirement that if he sells the ballclub, he cannot profit off the sale of the club? Wouldn’t that dissuade him from investing his capital into the ballclub?
and the details of the Royals’ finances for years. Like Captain Ahab and the White Whale. I applaud him for it, and Iwould love to listen to his show the day after he finally gets the information. But I fear he may never actually break that story. If he ever got his hands on that stuff, the Royals would put that entire radio station on Double Secret Probation.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Dutton and Mellinger are put in those roles
Dutton is the baseball guy, and doesn’t write particularly pointed articles. He reports the games and does the daily updates, but isn’t really going to dig into these issues. The Star has other people such as Posnanski and Mellinger to delve deeper into such matters, and whether or not they do that well is personal opinion. I think Posnanski, the eternal optimist, has his moments where he does, and Mellinger is willing to question suspect managing and front office moves.
Rany wrote something last year about the talent that the Sports section has recruited, and they’ve hired some of the best at what they do. We certainly do not have the problem in talent, but they cannot sell the paper on its sports section alone.
As for TV, I agree on the fail, but the other markets are even worse. You should see Cardinals games on Sunday, they’re hilarious. Mike Shannon comes in and does the 3rd and 4th innings all lit up, and they generally butcher coverage of baseball once a week. And don’t get me started on the Hawk
You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well...I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.
by Joseph Landis on Apr 22, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Good take
Agree on the roles Dutton and Mellinger play.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I agree with that
Although I disagree with most of Mellinger’s baseball opinions in his blog posts, his stories that run in The Star are pretty good.
Dutton’s not bad either, but neither of them seem to do much “investigative” journalism.
Other Royals related issues I’d like to see fleshed out:
- Did Baird really almost have Beltran signed to a long-term deal before Glass stepped in (as Rany insinuated)
- Just how much was Dan Glass running the club before Dayton took over (reports on the aborted Randa trade). Basically just do a tell all story from Baird’s perspective.
- Long report on the GM-less draft and how it was run
- Who’s life did Huber screw with to never get a shot?
Related: Why was Ross Gload given a 2 year deal?
- Get further insight on Trey’s decision making.
Of course investigative journalists who report negative articles on the Royals run the risk of getting their press access revoked nowadays…
That reminds me
Did Dan Glass really axe a Joe Randa to the Cubs trade?
Did David Glass really demand Allard get a MLB player for Jermaine Dye?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
And was there really a 24-hour window on trading Dye?
I think Dan Glass confirmed he axed the Randa to the Cubs trade (supposedly for Murton, Marmol, + 1 other), but he said it was only because he thought Allard was doing the trade for budgetary purposes.
I know it wasn't Murton
I’ve heard that one before, but Murton wasn’t a Cub until the trade deadline.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I was thinking about the dying newspaper industry
And I recalled some NPR story I heard years ago about how the Lawrence Journal World was thriving because they had branched out with a very successful internet site and they had a partnership with the local TV station for a news program.
Why don’t newspapers do TV? There is still money to be made in local TV. I think a smart business plan would be to work an arrangement with the last place local news station to outsource their news coverage to the newspaper. Maybe keep on a few anchors to look pretty and read the news, but the actual reporting is done by reporters who are already writing about it.
I don’t know, it just seems like if you’re only relying on the printed word on dead trees as your only source of revenue, you are doomed to fail.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
and TV stations are starting to do more online/blog stuff
they are still finding their way, but local tv and radio stations are starting to have more stuff on their websites other than staff bios and pictures of girls in bikinis…
I also think
If you’re dead last in the local news ratings, you should do something totally different than the other guys and do real news. Scrap the weather (which is the most popular part of most newscasts), scrap the murders and shootings. Do a magazine-type show where you do 3-4 in-depth stories a night. I think there are enough people looking for something different that you could land a decent part of the market doing that.
Just wishful thinking on my part though.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Ralph Nader used to have a great rant on the weather and how its eaten away at the news
I swear its like three segments now… and ohh look, its 1 degree different 20 miles away
its even more nonsensical on the east coast, where the geographic coverage is much much smaller
i never quite understood the fascination with the weather
couldn’t you just go outside for a few minutes? i guess if you’re planning a picnic or a trip to the ballpark, it might make a difference, but there’s already a huge margin of error, anyway
The Weather Channel is on 24/7?
I think even elderly people know this, and I can only see them caring if we got rid of the weather. Then, again no one in my family watches local news anyways, except my dad checks the weather, so I guess the elderly do care enough to turn to the local channels for that.
I like that magazine idea, sort of resembling the Newshour on PBS. Do the lead stories first, then do three in-depth pieces, and then recap the lead stories at the end. Run the weather on a crawl at the bottom of the screen.
You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well...I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.
by Joseph Landis on Apr 22, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
even more bizarrely, i knew a guy that watched the weather channel for hours on end
i can’t imagine a bigger waste of time — it’s like spending all of your time reading a train schedule, rather than boarding the thing and actually going somewhere
Or run a scrawl at the bottom
Showing what the weather will be like tomorrow? That’s all I really want to know. I don’t need the seven day forecast (which is likely wrong) or need to know about a cold front in Alberta.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Oops
Shoulda read Lobes post. Him and I are on the same brain wavelength today.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
You should get a checkup then
You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well...I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.
by Joseph Landis on Apr 22, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
In terms of sports reporting, it used to be
that the only way you could get an in-depth recap of the game was to read the newspaper the next day. Sure, you could catch the little tidbits on the local news channel, or a 10 second recap on ESPN, but they didn’t go into much detail.
Now you can go online and get a complete recap from ESPN or MLB.com/NFL.com/etc. You can then go and get opinions on the game from ESPN talking heads or the various blogs.
The one thing left that isn’t filled is the investigative reporting, which is what newspapers could but don’t seem to fill
+1
They need to figure out what need is not currently being met. That is in-depth investigating.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Think the other problem is that
The “worldwide leader” gets the best ratings for NOT digging too deep into the stories. They like their all-access status and aren’t about to risk it – and guess what? It’s working! The general public flocks like lemmings to the site to see what they should think about all things sporting (aside from soccer).
Aside from an occasionally decent “Outside the Lines” story, there isn’t anything remotely controversial coming out of Connecticut. Honestly though, until investigative reporting is valued (and I mean people willing to reward it financially and with subscription dollars), I don’t see there being a big change.
Russ Gload = Doug Mientiewicz....without the pop
This is a good point
Even though that site must get a ton of hits, I can’t remember the last time I got on there and saw anything that I found important/interesting enough to click on. Most days I don’t even bother visiting at all.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Sadly, that is true
Maybe the Star can stay afloat by luring sexual predators and catching them on camera.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 22, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd argue
that the WWL actually takes more risks than a local newspaper, even if those risks don’t seem particularly interesting or accurate. And they can get away with it, because who in their right mind is going to cut off ESPN’s access?
This space for rent.
There's a very important facet to all this
which I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone, anywhere, point out — and it sort of runs central to the entire “bloggers vs. journalists” debate.
Once upon a time, teams needed the local paper to publicize them. To that end, there was a sort of quid pro quo involved; writers would disseminate the information which the clubs wished to have disseminated, but in return the clubs would provide more access and throw the occasional “leak” to the reporter in question. That led to a more investigative bent to reporting, and a richer environment for journalism.
Fast-forward to now, where to be brutally honest about it teams have zero need for the local beat reporter. Where there were once a couple of newspapers (and then an additional 3-4 local TV news stations) to deal with, there’s now the MLB-owned team website (with a beat writer who, regardless of the disclaimers, is pretty much approved by the team and the league) to parrot press releases, there’s literally dozens of blogs for each team (some of which are now better connected to individuals in the front offices of teams than the beat reporters are), there are dozens of national media outlets who’ll print damn near anything as a story.
So, as a result, the quid pro quo has vanished. The Royals don’t need to give Dutton any special access, any favors, any juicy tidbits — and not only that, since they don’t need him, he has to be more circumspect about what he reports. And thus, the death of the hard-hitting investigative sports story; Bonds may well be the very last one we ever see, and we only even got that because the Chronicle guys were covering a criminal conspiracy.
This space for rent.
by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2009 10:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
