One of mob covering BIG beat vs. "own" small beat

I cover an FCS program and basically have the beat to myself. TV comes by for the weekly news conference and covers the home games. A local Web site attends the home games and some practices.

Meanwhile, I haven't even missed a practice in my four seasons on the beat. I do my best to cover the beat the same as I would if 10 other guys were there on a daily basis, but I do like that I have the flexibility to write whatever I want without worrying about what the pack is doing.

My biggest competition is probably a message board, which has regulars with very good connections and no need for attribution. The board beats me once or twice a year, usually because I can't get someone on the record about something, but I'm actually glad it does because it keeps me from getting complacent.

At my paper, my beat ranks third behind a pair of SEC schools we cover daily. That means I don't get stories in the center of the sports front all that often, but otherwise my beat is afforded the same space (and travel budget) that the others get.

 

Good post.

I have what would be considered a small beat right now, very, very similar to Cosmo's in that it's a mid-major Division I beat. Some competition from local TV, but I'm the only one who travels.

Like Brian's post, it's the biggest beat we have and it gets, by far, the most notice from our readers. I've built up trust over time among readers and sources and I've very rarely been beaten by TV competitors to break news. I've also been first more often than not on stories of quasi-national interest -- coaching changes, big-school transfers, etc.

At my station in life, I'm fine with what I have. I have the fortune to drop in and do NFL and other national stuff on a semi-regular basis and I don't think I'd want it full-time right now. Too much hassle, too much bullshit.

Some might say I'm not ambitious, but my current beat requires plenty of ambition to do it right.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm glad to have the number one beat at my paper ... even if the paper itself isn't as big.

 

I used to think I'd love to be on a big beat, but I love the small school beat.
Covering preps, we have a few competitors. We beat the big state paper nine out of 10 times - I really get pissed when local schools bitch to us about coverage, then go to the big paper that never sees them for a story - and our more direct competitors, well, we beat them 9 out of 10 times. The fear of losing to either drives me mad.

 

This sounds great in theory, but in practice it can be nearly impossible.

If you aren't from the metro that they read or see at the news stand, the players and coaches don't give a shit about you. They deem you to be small-time. Someone tells a story on here about Willie Mays hearing what small paper someone was from back in the day, then saying, "Sheeeeeeeeee-it," and walking away laughing. It happens. Every day. Maybe not as overtly, but it happens. If you travel, this can be overcome. But most of the time, especially in 2010, peripheral papers don't travel.

Your own paper can also serve as a huge roadblock. You may want to break every story and nab every 1-on-1. But you typically have other duties. Not easy to "rule your beat" when your team is clinching its division and you're at East Tech vs. Podunk Central instead. Because that's your paper's bread-and-butter and, quite honestly, you should be at that h.s. game instead.

Space is also a consideration. Yeah, you should be trying to break from the pack. But when Stephen Strasburg is getting Tommy John surgery, there's a game to cover, and you have 10 inches ... well, that neato skeato feature on Ian Desmond's cool hobby serves nobody except your clips file.

 

I've had a little experience with the "big beats." I remember covering the Chiefs-Broncos game in 2000 at Mile High. I think it was the last season at the old stadium, and Elvis Grbac led a John Elway-like drive in the final minutes, giving the Chiefs the victory. I remember all the reporters huddled around Grbac, asking all kinds of questions. Not one asked him about the final drive, an Elway-like drive to win a game at a stadium that was filled with comebacks. I finally asked Grbac about it, and he the smile never left his face when he spoke for about two minutes about how the first thing he thought of was Joe Montana's comeback at Mile High in 1994 and how he felt he left his own small legacy there on that day.

At least three different papers took that angle the next day. I was annoyed but happy at the same time.

As for the original question, I prefer the small beat but I guess that's because that's been most of my career. Wouldn't mind covering soccer or the University of Kansas though.

 

If you think that post-game gang-bangs are where the big beats are covered, you are sorely mistaken. That's about 1 percent of the job. Frankly, a monkey could do that part of the job.

Again, the "big beats" aren't as big as people think. Other than New York, there are no more than 5-6 regulars on a major college or pro beat.

 

The five people the Boston Globe has reporting on each brush stroke Tom Brady makes through his hair would disagree with this statement.

 

i have done both and think I have a good idea of both. First was a low level D I team that was a 16 seed in NCAA hoops. That's a great beat, and the stories were tremendous.

Now, covering a BCS football team, and it's a big beat with a ton of media.

I liked both. For the daily grind, small beat gives you tremendous latitude to write. It's great freedom to work.

Big beat is annoying on the grind because of pack journalism, access and competition, but when it's a big story, you can't compete with the writing. Nothing is better than a major story on a big beat because it has impact. It's incredible and keeps you in the business.

Nothing is worse than covering a losing team on a big beat. Irrelevant team on a big beat is awful work conditions.

Some observations. On big beat you have to develop your niche. To be honest, on big beat scoops are near impossible. Even if you have something, once it's one the web, it's confirmed by someone else and the original scoop gets lost in translation.

What I hate about Big Beat is many places -- mostly in college football -- have set media hours and access times. A lot of my interviews are done with 8 other guys around. There is no depth, and there is always quote pillage (I try not to do it). You have to be willing to wait people out and get them alone for a minute to.

Some places make it difficult to get more than 10 minutes with a player during the week. Very hard to do a really good feature in that time (especially with TV guy asking him about how giving up the TD felt -- let me guess, shitty). Certainly, I get plenty of good quality, but it only scratches the surface.

Small beat is freedom. You can do incredible work and show your talents. But, it's small-time.

Freedom vs. relevance.

What do you think?

 

Comes down to freedom of access. You have to be able to talk to players at some point. But, some places are near impossible to get players without other media around.

Should have a thread on how to get by access restrictions. That would be something I am interested in. And, I am sick of talking to star players father. Not that please.

 

I especially like those major stories like "Butch Davis says he has no interest in NFL."

Have to write it, I guess, 'cause he said it.

But you know it's a lie when you're hearing it. You know it's a lie when you're writing it. Could not function talking to people who always lie and never being able to call bullshit on them.

 

Great post that encapsulates a lot of what is frustrating about a big beat. Nice to hear someone else say that it starts to get tiring having to essentially do a "write-around" the subject. Of course, of course, of course you should be talking to other sources. Of course, of course, of course all of your reporting shouldn't happen at "access."

But, I'm sorry, it gets old having to spin 40 inches or more out of five minutes with a kid and four phoners with the people who changed his diapers.

 

I covered "small" beats for my entire 10-year career. Small in quote marks because they were a big deal in my cities (my first, St. Bonaventure basketball, was followed in town with all the ferocity of any major beat).

There are aspects to it I really liked. It's nice not to be a faceless member of the media hoard. I liked that I was able to get, say, my school's conference commissioner on the phone anytime I needed - whereas I'd never get Roger Gooddell on the phone. Ideally, you treat your small beat like you would a big one. There is something to be said about being the authority on something.

On the other hand, Mizzou's right, I missed having real competition. That drove me as a reporter early on. When you don't have it, it's easy to get complacent (which may, in part, explain why I'm now in grad school). Plus, if you're one of the mob, you can still break a big story of national importance.

It really is six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Depends on what you want out of your career and your personality.