Kevin Durant, Greg Howard, Ramona Shelburne and the answer for the media scrum

You can't use this one, though. The premise is: Why attend games if you can't interview people?

 

It was a lot easier to do the job when you could actually get more than 30 seconds with a player/coach without some PR flak making your life miserable.

When I still worked in sports, I rarely used the quotes from media scrums because I could almost always get 1-on-1 time with people and that made it possible to get unique insight that others didn't have.

Somebody correct me if necessary, but I get the sense that the media pig-piles have become more widespread because the players want to limit their own availability and the teams want to control everything they say.

I completely agree with limiting credentials. Back in the day it used to be a bitch to get a credential for anything like an All-Star Game. They probably need to get back to that.

But if athletes are frustrated by the questions they get asked in media scrums, they really should blame themselves and their organizations first. I'll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

Has Durant stated whether his beef was with the media in general, the local guys, the ESPN talking heads or just what he was confronted with over the all-star weekend? It seems like the athletes who have been the most outspoken about the athlete-media relationship (Durant, Westbrook and Lynch) play in athlete-friendly media markets.

 

Mixed zones such as at the Olympics and European soccer are clusterfucks of the first order. But you can ask questions.

 

I'm a little flabbergasted that the trendy new take in sports journalism is that players aren't worth talking to. I had it drilled into my skull when I started out - and this was on preps, but it carries over - that you talk to the players, not the damned coaches. The players were the ones out there. It separated us from 90 percent of preps coverage at that time, and I thought we were doing it the right way. I felt the same way when I covered pro and college beats, always reminding myself to get to the players for insights, first and foremost.

 

I agree with you there 1000 percent.

 

It's a fool's take. Usually it's made by people who can get the private access they need based on the name of the media outlet on their credential. Or it's made by Deadspin, the hipster iconoclasts who openly disdain their profession because, duh, artists.

 

When did all media outlets get shut out from interviewing people and why hasn't that happened on my beats yet?

 

I'm not advocating not talking, but I do think it's possible you can cover things well without quotes from the one guy who refuses to talk. If all guys refuse to talk? Now it's getting much more difficult, but again, European press manages it (sort of; some guys do talk).

You can certainly see a lot that goes on in games, in person, that you cannot see on the television. Let's not pretend otherwise. Even the "Doug Baldwin poops out a football" thing is a prime example. CBS wouldn't show it on their feed, yet we know it happened. Let's say it's something like the QB and the HC get into a screaming match on the sideline, and you don't get to see it because you're instead forced to watch a commercial for 2 Broke Girls?

 

They didn't.

Double Down said that reporters don't "need" the insights of athletes when covering a sport, in response to my assertion that talking to athletes is more a part of a reporter's job than talking to reporters is part of Kevin Durant's job.

And my response was: OK, if reporters don't need to talk to athletes, then why cover the games at all?

 

Right. I agree with you on all this.

But the question is: Is it worth it for the immense resources commitment to covering a team on the road? You can pick up a few things at the game, sure. But you do get most of it from your couch. Just not all of it. The benefit is marginal. The best bloggers, for example, seem to bring some pretty stout analysis without a credential.

I get that it's a CYA thing, too. Something might happen when you aren't there. But, again, lot of money to cover a team on the road for that.

 

Great question. My answer: It depends.

No, it's no longer worth so a beat gal/guy can string together a few quotes from the coach and file a play-by-play. It's not. It's not the coach's beat, and the reporter does not work for the pro team or the school.

And it's not worth it if you're going to tether your beat writer to her or his seat so they can constantly file the "online" recap that your damn desk can write. The beat writer has to have reporting, has to have insight, and they have to write with enough voice that a reader says "I enjoyed this because it supplemented my experience watching the game, and I will continue to seek out this writer for that reason."

That's why the "best blogs" work, regardless of access. Because they augment the experience. Traditional media outlets -- TV stations included -- have to move beyond mere transcription, and media leaders need to allow their reporters to move beyond it.

I read far too many next-day reports of sporting events that are just tame. Tame! Boring! Lame! And I know, somewhere, there's a message board asking a provocative question, creating intriguing discussion, and, yes, it goes without saying that actually facing players and coaches makes for a more tame approach. It does, because there's a face on the other side of those words you're writing or saying. But damn if too many reporters still carry themselves these days like "oh, I'm just a reporter, here for your cliche comments that I must quote, hope the PR flak/SID lets me talk to ol Jack The Quarterback for 3 minutes" as if we know, without a doubt, all readers want are little quote nuggets.