Dog bites man.

It's not news. It's fanboyishness run amok.

Just like this NY Post "news" story in 2004, prior to the first Yankees-Red Sox regular season series:

 

To be fair, if the guy had been killed or beaten within an inch of his life, it would have been a good story.

 

Lots of Yankee fans on this board, I'm guessing.

Red Sox and Yankees make up the biggest rivalry in sports. Red Sox win Series, Yankees fall apart, lose their manager, won't sign their best player. Boston reporter dresses in Sox gear goes to New York to see what happens.

I dont see the problem. Keep in mind these papers have been writing these stories for years. What's wrong with writing it in a different way? It makes a stale topic fresh. And if you say it's not relevant, that the Sox didn't play the Yanks, you obviously don't understand this rivalry.

By the way, anyone care to guess which Globe story ranks atop today's most emailed list?

One of the problems with this business is that journalists think too much like journalists. Some of that's a good thing. If we really listened to the public, the sports pages would be filled with Ulitmate Fighting (or whatever it's called,) NASCAR and Fantasy Football. God help us all.

The bad part is that we're too stuck in our J-school ways. Report the news, write engaging commentary, but for the love of GOD have fun every now and then. Maybe this story didn't work for you, but I'd take it over the boring, predictable celebration bullshit any day. I mean, heaven forbid we surprise the readers once in a whille.

 

One more thing, the goal of every reporter should be to write stories that capture reader's attention.

Maybe they won't finish the whole thing, but at the very least you want them to glance at it, to give your writing a chance.

In that sense, this story was a success. I guarantee a great percantage of Globe readers saw the headline, understood the premise and at least started it.

Whether they finished it, I couldn't say.

 

Sorry, Matt. I just thought you should have written this story when there was more direct connection between the Yankees and the Red Sox. No doubt there was plenty of opportunity this year and for the last five years, and surely there will be in the million years to come as this is, of course, the greatest rivalry. E.V.E.R.

I do have one question though: did you just walk around the streets not saying a word, or did you actively draw attention to yourself? You should make that more clear in your story.

 

I'm neither a Yankee or Red Sox fan. I'm a Mets fan.

But my fandom doesn't preclude me from distinguishing a good story from 16 inches of fecal matter. And The Globe story was nothing more than fanboyism fecal matter run amok.

 

It's almost always some dumb little story, though, because who in their right mind is going to e-mail a city council story or even the Game 4 story to anyone? And I wonder if this kind of thing is as popular with paying customers as it is with Web readers. You can't say for sure that it is, and I can't say for sure that it isn't. But my hunch is that they're two different kinds of readers.

 

Frank, that's a great question. One of the biggest facing the future of sports coverage.

Are online readers different from print readers?

And if so, what does that mean?

 

What does it say that this entire board hates it ... but the general public (at least those who visit the Globe site) loves it?

 

That people don't go to the Net for hard news? That newspapers should look at that (my paper's top-e-mailed list usually has hey-Martha stuff, too) and be more serious and less frivolous.

I suspect you say it means something else.

 

I don't know.

The senior guys and gals.


You, me, FB, Casty, Flash.