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!

Berkshire cuts?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Jake_Taylor, May 29, 2018.

  1. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    I like columnists who use their space for a strong mix of opinion and hard analysis, both pro and con. Trouble is, at some point too many beat writers also wanted to become local celebrities – rockstars! – so they started loading their reports with analysis, too, and of course that puts too much of their opinions and speculations into what is supposed to be straight news reporting. That's where objectivity gets lost in the shuffle, I've always thought. YMMV.
     
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    This arose, in some ways, out of a desire to go beyond what happened (because everybody knows that) and explain why and how. And since teams have largely moved beyond telling anything close to the truth, there’s really Four ways to go:

    >>Breathing transaction wire: This role is increasingly becoming obsolete because agents, teams and coaches just reach out to national outlets who can help them. Schefter, Woj, Ken Rosenthal, and the like. Local beat reporters - especially at the pro level - are at a decided disadvantage.

    >>Team buddy/mouthpiece. Problem with this is regimes change often and it can be hard to shift tones along with it. Reporters ought to know where the team ends and they begin. The highbrow version of this is the beat writer who spends more time on takeout/feature work than working the daily grind, the counter-programming beat writer, who mostly exists at a large paper/magazine and doesn’t have to shovel the shit because everyone else does.

    >>Anonymous source reporter. This tends to dovetail with mouthpiece but, for example, anonymous source reporting is what covering Trump is. Nobody’s gonna tell you shit on the record, so you let em say it with the immunity of anonymity. Covering the Trump administration? Maybe you gotta. Maybe it’s worth it to the American public. Otherwise?

    >>Analytical beat writer. This is where, instead of quoting anonymous sources, you cull their perspectives and put your own spin on it. It’s a kind of uneasy middle ground, yes, existing in part because columnists don’t drop in anymore, or do so less. Plus, there’s the inevitable competiton between sb nation or rivals or radio stations.

    Good beat writing is, yes, cultivating sources, but sources are steeped in agendas now, and the wage gulf between beat writers and most non-prep sources is so vast that, on some level, it’s sort of comical to think they’ll give you anything or would think they have to. They don’t need beat writers for anything. So the transaction is...what, exactly?

    That’s where the tension lies.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page