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

Tell me again, somebody, why we care what athletes have to say? I seriously can't remember the last time I read a truly insightful quote from an athlete. Probably going back to Peyton Manning's "idiot kicker" remark. We the media have trained athletes (just like politicians) to stay on-message and be as uninteresting as possible. And when somebody does say something interesting (Hope Solo comes to mind, or Richard Sherman), we skewer them.

I thought not the least bit less of Steve Carlton and George Hendrick during their playing days because they didn't talk to the press. Hell, when Carlton started talking, the stuff he was saying was so weird that I'd rather he had stayed quiet.

Theater critics don't rely on quotes for their reviews. (Can you imagine? "Neil Patrick Harris, talk about the first few minutes of Act II where you made that funny look toward backstage.") Game stories are, essentially, a review. I truly am interested in knowing whether the reporter saw the same game I did and less in hearing Joe Ballplayer say, "We just take them one game at a time."

And don't even get me started on the halftime sideline "interviews" or the immediate post-game mic-in-the-face thing. Other than Richard Sherman, no useful information has ever in the history of ever been conveyed in one of those.

I spent a few years as a beat writer gathering quotes just for the sake of gathering quotes, after giving up on mostly futile efforts to get people to say something interesting. Talking to athletes is the most overrated part of sports coverage.

 

Then why cover the games?

 

Same reason you write a theater review or a movie review. Because people are interested in what transpired at the event. And over the course of the season, fans are interested in identified trends and on-field/on-court storylines.

And yeah, if you could get a coach or an athlete to expound about the "why," great, put that in your story. But I think it has been conclusively proven that you're not going to get that in the post-game scrum.

 

Michael Bradley weighs in.

"If the athletes want out, then let’s let them out. No more questions. No more intrusions. In return, the media vows to end the puff pieces that help promote the players as solid citizens. No more stories about their valiant comebacks from injury. No more talking about the personal hardships they have overcome to reach the big time. And no more apologizing for any of their boorish behavior."

and

"If athletes are going to cut off the flow of information, the media should respond with a similar embargo on the positive pieces that help the players build images they can sell to fans and sponsors.

Durant’s outburst may not have been received well by media members, but it might turn out to be an early step in an end to the hypocritical dance between journalists and the athletes they cover."

 

Again, I understand why we should write about the games.

But why attend them?

 

He's extrapolating from Durant and Lynch's nonsense a general animosity between media and athletes that just doesn't exist.

I think it's kind of like the old joke about asking people about Congress. Everyone hates Congress. But not their Congressman.

If you asked Kevin Durant if he hates the media, he might say, "Yes."

If you asked him about 10 individual media members, he'd probably say, "Oh yeah, I like that guy." Or, "Him? He's cool."

 

You attend them to be able to form your own perspective as a reporter about what's going on at the event. Yes, you could watch the game on TV, and watch it even with the sound off to not be influenced by what you hear from the play-by-play people. But you're still watching what some producer is deciding you should watch. When you attend the game, you're gaining an unfiltered perspective on the event.

 

Plus - free tickets!

 

I really think that this would take care of itself, at least with the bigger names...

Those who covered Tiger early in his career remember how miserable he was to deal with. Then, Nike talked to him and let him know that it probably wasn't a good idea to have a combative relationship with the media when they're paying him tens of millions of dollars to be one of the faces of their brand.

There aren't too many active guys with big endorsement deals who are widely known for being difficult to deal with. That may change with Lynch, but we'll see.

 

As has been explained before, because you MIGHT miss something. Most of the time, a story appearing in a newspaper has no more insight than what could be gleamed from TV. HOWEVER . . . if you see two teammates arguing or a coach and a teammate arguing, that's something the TV cameras may have missed.

I suspect the best Boston Marathon explosion stories were written by people who were there. Sometimes there really is something to be said for being there. Just not always, I'll grant you.

Our company does NOT cover every road NBA or NHL game. That's a risk/reward decision they've chosen to make.

 

Right. But that's a huge bet to play, in terms of resources, in the event something could happen. Particularly covering road trips.

I don't have a strong feeling on this one way or the other. I guess I'd have to see numbers. Outside of the NFL, I suspect that covering sports isn't worth the money it takes for local newspapers, even the metros.

 

Basically, I agree. It just was never a big deal when these newspapers were printing money.

Outside of a radio broadcast, nobody --- absolutely nobody --- covered Wilt's 100-point game. Newspaper articles were called in by Warriors' PR guy Harvey Pollack (working for AP, UPI and the Philly Inquirer), and the only photographs came from an AP guy who took his kid to the game on his day off and realized late in the game that something special was happening. No video exists.

And the sun came up the next day.

Frankly, it adds to the mythology of the event. You can't have that anymore. With anything.