1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SI new hires

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by thebiglead, Aug 31, 2007.

Page 3 of 4
  1. jambalaya

    jambalaya Member

    Scribe, did Tod leave the UT? He's really A+ in my book.
     
    jambalaya, Sep 5, 2007
    #25
  2. thebiglead

    thebiglead Member

    Not sure why you say that ... can you elaborate on this hunch?
     
    thebiglead, Sep 5, 2007
    #26
  3. LATimesman

    LATimesman Member

    The sports editor at the San Diego paper, Chuck Scott, has enjoyed a fine reputation in the business. How do you think he's doing?
     
    LATimesman, Sep 5, 2007
    #27
  4. thebiglead

    thebiglead Member

    Still waiting on this one, Playthrough ...
     
    thebiglead, Sep 6, 2007
    #28
  5. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I'm an idiot. That should read biased "for" online joints, biglead. You obviously wouldn't be biased against.

    Nothing personal, your domain is online-dom and I was responding to your post about choosing work at espn over SI. Both are great joints, but I wouldn't automatically rule out SI because their online site is a shell of espn.com. It's still a dream destination for a lot of writers out there.
     
    playthrough, Sep 6, 2007
    #29
  6. sports scrub

    sports scrub Member

    I guess I'm in the minority that actually likes the SI site better than ESPN. Too much stuff going on on ESPN for me. I like it simple. Plus the writing is better at SI.
     
    sports scrub, Sep 6, 2007
    #30
  7. thebiglead

    thebiglead Member

    Fair enough. And there's no question ... plenty of people wouldn't rule out SI. Maybe it's just me, but i'd always rather be a big fish in a small pond than vice versa .. who doesn't like being an underdog?
     
    thebiglead, Sep 6, 2007
    #31
  8. TX Writer

    TX Writer Member

    Count me in. I agree completely. It's my belief that you get better bang for your buck with the writers at SI. Every one has talent and is above par, in my opinion. You can't say that about every writer at ESPN.

    I think the lack of TV works for SI as well. Television drives ESPN, not pure sports journalism. SI writes for the everyday sports fan while ESPN looks for the glitz and glamour far more often than it should.
     
    TX Writer, Sep 6, 2007
    #32
  9. write then drink

    write then drink Guest

    i think that's a pretty damn good point
     
    write then drink, Sep 6, 2007
    #33
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Since when would SI or ESPN be a "small pond"?
     
    dooley_womack1, Sep 7, 2007
    #34
  11. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    SI might not be the clusterfuck that ESPN is, but on no level is it "a small pond"
     
    Mizzougrad96, Sep 7, 2007
    #35
  12. thebiglead

    thebiglead Member

    Sorry, I should have clarified. SI has maybe 2-3 writers per sport. NFL, NBA ... each of them is 'Big Fish.' When writing for SI.com - which ranks behind ESPN, Yahoo, Fox, in terms of 'circulation' (hits), i would call that a small (or smaller) pond.
    At ESPN, you have 7-8 guys writing about NFL, NBA, MLB, etc ... and you get lost in the shuffle. Big pond.

    If it still doesn't add up ... well, it sounded OK when i was talking to myself about it.
     
    thebiglead, Sep 7, 2007
    #36
Page 3 of 4
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page