CJR: How sportswriting can recapture its relevance

I do not see things ever going back in the other direction.

The article correctly states that poor management is largely to blame. Too few people with the right background are listening to what readers want and giving it to them while helping their writers focus on a main goal and maintain a profitable business.

Readers don't want less reporting and fewer stories for the same price - or even more. Yet that's what so many managers are saying readers want when that's so far from the truth.

What do we do best - report and tell stories through written words. Now we're being told to do so in less time and with fewer resources so we can blog, do videos, tv shows and podcasts and post fluff online updates 24 hours a day. The job duties have more than doubled yet expectations are that one person can and should always get the job done with no significant pay raise.

Many readers have given up. They see through the cost-cutting measures that result in a lower-quality product. The loyal readers will die off in the next few years and most others will turn to tv, the Internet and message boards.

His idea is not completely wrong. There's just too little direction from those who are at the wheel of the ship. The next line of defense - middle managers - want to keep their jobs so they stay quiet. For some of us to try and turn it around without their help would be like a fishing boat trying to stop an aircraft carrier from leaving the harbor.

I am usually an optimist, but the obstacles appear to be too steep to overcome. I hope I am wrong.

 

What they don't understand is that the goal of a newspaper's web site should be to drive traffic to the paper, not the other way around. The web site should only be judged a success if circulation goes up - and be judged a failure if page views go up but circulation drops. And by that standard, newspaper have been miserable failures at the web.

 

we may sink in the sand pit, but our paper's publisher refuses to get totally wrapped up in the online business. his belief is that we are first and foremost a newspaper with emphasis on "paper"...he believes that too much emphasis on our Web site takes away from our daily paper. oh we have a Web site, but we don't put the content and effort into it like we do on the paper. again, maybe we are trying to grab some of the remaining oars as the "ship" sinks, but such is what it is.
the times when i do not agree with him is when there are major developments in our local area for sports (or news, too) and we lolly-gag in getting it out there quickly.

 

A couple of things:

1. Does it make me a bad person that I don't give a shit if some Little League mom tells me that she was so happy that I mentioned little Freddy Fastball in the sports section the other day, and how it made his day? Please try not to take this personally, because I guess there's a place for community journalism and I'm certainly not one to turn my nose up at the people who practice it, but one of the first lessons I had pounded into me was, "Don't write for your sources."

Yet I read this again and again and again on here. About how the $18K a year and nights and weekends were worth it when Suzie Softball's mom pulled you aside and said how much of a smile you put on her face when you wrote about Suzie's inside-the-park home run to beat Podunk Tech in the title game of the Class C Super Regional consolation bracket.

But I guess that just shows what a wide range of people we have on here, and how not every sports journalist is the same or approaches the job with the same objectives.

Again, maybe I'm just a helpless cynic.

2. I've floated the idea on here of charging for the Web. Just stop giving it away. And I think ultimately that's the answer.

But I imagine those of you who want to just close the Web shop permanently or speak of the medium with such disdain don't work at a paper that covers any national college or pro beats. It's easy to dismiss the Web when your audience is self-contained in your coverage area. It's a lot tougher to think that way when you're getting emails from Brazil and Europe (two locations in a recent batch I received). The Web has been a godsend, in some ways, to college town papers, who suddenly have relevance well beyond the 50,000 people who grab the dead tree version every day.

That being said, I think we've had such a woody about being mentioned on ESPN and rolling up Web hits like a pinball score that we lose sight of objective No. 1 - find a way to make money off of our newfound reach.

 

Good points there, Waylon.

I can't really speak for the other guys who mentioned the love for pleasing the sources, but I know for me that was a big reward to hear things like that. Doesn't necessarily mean I, or others like me, write for them. I'm sure others who have said that have also thoroughly ticked off others in that community. I know I have.

But with your other ideas about the Web....I think it depends on which paper, whether or not charging for the Web site would work. But it's a good idea.

I also agree on your last sentence. But I think that may be a phase that passes. Today, the popular thing is to get your mug on ESPN or be a call-in guest reporter or something. Tomorrow it will be something else. And the day after that something else.

 

I learned pretty quickly that they like you when you write something nice about them and they dislike you when you write something they don't like or consider "negative." It has nothing to do with you.

Let me branch off into an analogy that may or may not make sense. I read Gerry Faust's autobiography a while ago. Now, we all know the guy was an abject failure as a college coach. But there was something in there he had absolutely correct. When people were glad handling him early on, he realized that it had nothing to do with him, and everything to do with his position - head football coach at Notre Dame.

When he began losing games, those same people, of course, hated him. Considered him the scum of the earth. But, again, he realized that it wasn't personal. And it meant nothing about Gerry Faust the person. That guy never changed.

Well, it's the same thing with the way our sources react to what we write. When Momma Volleyball tells me what a great job I did, she doesn't really think I did a great job. She is just happy I mentioned Vickie Volleyball in my story. If I had made a decision on deadline to focus on Valerie Volleyball and her 10 kills instead of Vickie's game-winnning serve, then Momma Volleyball would have hated me.

Again, I say all this while admitting that I may be a cynic and not as good and pure-hearted of a person who do get satisfaction out of filling kids' scrapbooks.

 

CornFlakes is sooooo right. some of today's employees in our profession wouldn't know a good story or angle if it hit them right in their face because they haven't been in the "trenches" enough to know good beat reporting, following a lead and "hunch", etc...they're too busy writing a cute blog or column that many readers could care less about. is it just me thinking that I believe too many of us have grown lazy at times in putting out a quality product jammed with great writing, thorough analysis, etc..? i am finding myself every day growing tired of this continuing trend of an emphasis on what "fans" are thinking, their opinions on games, events, developments, etc., etc. you can't have any type of subject in sports now without a Web site, newspaper or whoever offering a fans' forum or opinion. add all of those opinions up and too often they don't mean crap. everybody, it seems is an expert on everything sports and i believe we've helped create that perception because it's a quick and easy way of getting a story.

 

Well, I did, but not for 30 years. Wrote columns, too. Always thought that helped when I went in the other direction.

 

On another subject, we had some writers in town last night and went to dinner and column styles came up.

I think this is relevant to this thread: My most basic theory is that a lot of sports writers back in the day had one of two "national" role models when it came to writing style (although not exactly trying to duplicate): Jim Murray and Red Smith. To make it more basic: "humor" or "serious". Although not mutually exclusive.

I was a Red Smith guy. Wonder if anybody else understands what the hell I'm talking about.

 

WaylonJennings....oh i agree in what you're saying totally about the read--Momma Volleyball or Daddy Football--saying that they liked what I wrote solely because it had to do with their son or daughter. it's just that, in this business, compliments are few and far between, so it's nice to hear some every now and then. i certainly don't rely on it or get heads over heels over it because i can be as cynical as the next guy who's been in this business a lonnnng time. oh how well i know how those same parents can turn on you like a copperhead. trust me, i know. best example i can recall right away is the time one youth momma cussed me out while i was on deadline because i had misspelled her name and then asked why I did it. i was in a raunchy ass mood that day and didn't give a crap what I said and my calm reply was: "M'am, I will tell you exactly why that happened. I got out of bed this morning and said to myself, 'Self, I am going to misspell so-and-so's name today'. And your's son name, M'am, popped up as the winner."
and believe this: she thought I was serious.

 

There's one problem about getting back to the true "beat reporting." Now that staffs are shrinking and we, as writers, are forced to do more, our responsibilities are shifted. I, myself, have a Division I beat, but along with that, I cover high school sports and layout the paper three times a week. Granted, I am a member of a two-person staff, yet, I am sure many of us have these same responsibilities. I try to put as much effort as I can into developing my beat and the relationships inside, but sometimes it's difficult with the added responsibilities.

Just my take.