sportsjournalism today

I remember good old Charlie Feeney -- Pally (he called everybody Pal) -- in Pittsburgh. He is typing away from the first pitch. An hour later, he files. An hour after that, here comes the kid delivering the early edition in the press box. So in the sixth inning, you could read about what happened in the third inning. No wonder Pally was crazy.

 

Sports writing isn't really fun for two big reasons:
1. The things we actually like to do -- write, tell good stories, etc. -- don't really matter anymore.
2. Getting even the most basic of details/interviews for some stories requires so much more effort than 10 years ago that it makes the job so much more mentally draining.

I have a pretty great job right now but at least three times a week, if not more, I wonder if it's all worth it.

 

This was the nut to me:

In this era, many media members are highly incentivized to keep pace with Twitter’s demand for “breaking news,” but the game is rigged in a manner nobody can admit publicly. Certain big-time newsbreakers are represented by the same agencies as the players and GMs, so there’s a self-dealing aspect to how information gets out. ​

I assume that the "insiders" with millions of Twitter followers are in bed with agencies, yes, but being represented by those agencies does seem like a conflict of interest.

What's more, though: Is "fun" the goal of a sports journalist? As a friend once said, about adulting in general, "They call it work for a reason." Not trying to discredit ESS at all (he's a helluva lot better than I am), but if one is in the biz primarily to feel the adrenaline during the best Steph Curry moments, maybe one's goals are misplaced.

And did ESS get fired from ESPN for performance - which is how I read his description - or as part of the massive layoffs of 2017 (which affected dozens of other people, regardless of performance)?

If Shams(? - whatever his name is) and Stein really denied themselves pickup basketball and movies, respectively, for the sake of not missing anything, I think they have a slightly inflated sense of self-importance.

 

Also, more money. That helps, a lot, even if, there's not a better work/life balance. In that case, at least the compensation makes up for it more.

 

I think this problem — and don’t get me wrong, it is definitely a problem — is exclusive to pro and major college sports.

On the preps beat, it’s easier than ever to get in touch with sources for information on the fly.

This sort of access is exactly why I tell young sports writers to keep an open mind about starting at a small community paper.

 

It remains a good gig. Sure, there is stress. There is more satisfaction and fun for a job done well and one that is important to people, from preps to pros.

 

as long as there have been sportswriters, there have been civilians who pop up to ask: Is it fun? Is (pick your superstar) nice? The use of "fun" was a play off the outsiders' forever wrong perception that the gig isn't work; if you're stuck on that headline you're missing the point. the piece is about how the "work" is changing to the point where the journalism, the telling of stories, has become secondary. we've known this is true for a while now. the important part is the back-scratching among agents, "talent" and sources, and the self-congratuation that ensues when it pays off with a youTube clip.

that smarmy, oft-vicious circle -- and the acceptance of it as an acceptable way of doing our business now -- hasn't been picked apart enough. this was a good start.

 

Money doesn't solve everything but it can definitely reduce some stress to make up for a still tilted work/life balance.

 

Where does he/she rank all-time? What's his/her legacy?

 

Used to work with a guy whose output indicated he thought his job was to start and finish bar arguments about best this, best that.

 

the schefter email to bruce "mr. editor" allen is just more proof of the insidious slide in ethics/code/PROFESSIONALISM in this...profession. problem is, the example is now set by ESPN and the rest of sports TV -- not ailing newspapers -- so aspiring journos see that Rachel Nichols/schefter/etc rose to the top by being sycophantic "friends" with sources. all of this in the service of maintaining oh-so-precious access to famous faces and their (hoped-for) accompanying clicks. (see: news side: CNN's socute!/corrupt pairing of the Cuomo bros night after night.)

journalism is still possible, of course. for years the washpost has done stellar work on the WFT without ANY access to Snyder or his cowering front office. but the lesson -- especially now that ESPN is quietly decommissioning its investigative crew -- is that the TV's entertainment-first standard is the most rewarding. perhaps Richard Deitsch and the Ringer and every other sports media critic are out reporting out long pieces on this trend. one day hit-and-runs on the Nichols/schefter incidents aren't going to cut it.

 

One thing I've also realized, many journos have to have like two or three jobs (writer, radio, maybe a weekly TV gig) to get by. That's bad - what's worse is that those are three jobs in the past that were done by three different people. So two fewer chances for people to make a buck in the biz.