Kindred's frightening look at the future of sportwriting

So...no one's even going to mention that the magazine article Leonsis the Younger turned his nose up at was the most recent Where Are They Now?

Pops wanted his 19-year-old son to read a 2,500-word opus on the 1969 New York Mets, right that second -- and he wasn't interested. That doesn't strike me as the most compelling evidence for...anything at all, really.

Thin gruel, Dave. Thin, thin gruel. And it's made thinner by Waylon's excellent point about assigned reading.

And one more thing: Since when do 19-year-old multi-millionaire Ivy League varsity golfers beat with the pulse of the nation, anyway?

 

Absolutely true. The only time I did reading for fun was during the summers. I'm reading so much more now that I'm out of school.

 

I disagree, simply because of this:

 

Who cares what a 19 year Ivy League golfer thinks. I agree with your sentiment.
Also, good luck getting the access to go with a coach or player on vacation.
I mean ... get real, people. The access these days is getting worse. If people don't want to read newspaper reporters' takes on the news then the business will have to go down the toilet. Stories like those aren't going to happen.
And I don't think a story on the coach showing you film of how to break a press is interesting either. Just cause you get special access doesn't mean it's interesting.
Good luck to 19 year old kids finding out what is really going on with their favorite teams without us providing the news as it breaks. Good luck to the bloggers building relationships with players and coaches and finding the news as it happens.
I can't wait to see the world without newspapers. Sounds like a protective parent who came up with those suggestions. That SI piece was pretty good if you care about the subjects; it sucked if you don't. Big deal.

 

Yes, the young trend is going to the web for everything, newspapers, entertainment, etc...it's just a matter of us finding the best way to make $$$ off that online venue and hoping that consumers realize the importance of searching out a credible source rather than just accepting any bloggers diatribe as "news"

It's pretty obvious where this occupation is going, just a matter of how we get there, while still getting a paycheck

 

I think sports sections need to start completely over. Put EVERYTHING on the table and figure out a way to do it more creatively. We're SO predictable. It's 1:45 am and I can tell you exactly what's going to be in tomorrow's paper. On our college football page, we'll run two or three 15-inch, AP game stories with no quotes. Why? Because that is the way the page is designed. That's boring and idiotic.

Look at what we're up against: Behind-the-scenes access is getting worse. Press seating is getting worse. Athletes are breaking news on Twitter and personal Web-sites. College media relations directors are shielding players and coaches more than ever.

And yet, for the most part, sports sections are still rolling out the same old product. Oh, we're making changes, but most of it is based on space reductions, which means spiking the NHL round-up, making the bold decision to not run preseason NBA box scores or moving the high school roundup to the Web. That doesnt cut it. We have to re-define "news" for the print product, basically because news in print is no longer news. What does that mean? No one has figured it out. We break news online and then run the same stories in next day's paper. What incentive does that give anyone to buy the newspaper? Readers aren't stupid, and yet we cross our fingers and hope they never figure it out.

People don't have the time to read? Fine. We still have to come up with ways to keep their attention. The Sporting News does this better than anyone. I dont subscribe, but every time I pick up a copy, I look at, skim or read every single page. Why? Because they make it easy. Tons of Q&A's, shorts bursts of sharp analysis, as-told-to player diaries ... all stuff we can do, but for the most part don't because, well, I really don't know.

 

you make some good point SilentBob...a key seems to be making the web and print product work together so both are worthy of a reader's attention. My hunch...have a more interactive approach with the web and put more of your detailed stories in the print product. It's a tough balancing act regardless, but some do it better than others.

Sporting News does a good job with its capsules, but it seems ESPN the Mag tries the same thing, but goes so over the top it's ridiculous.

 

I became a little bit dumber by reading that.

 

Kids aren't reading ... they've been saying that since I was a kid ... in the 70s and 80s. Probably said it before that too.

There's truth to the central worry about not reading print, but what's debatable is what it means to the future. I'm not sure anything more can be extrapolated by the lack of reading now versus the lack of reading in 1980.

 

I don't think so. Zach Leonsis is the kind of person who is not interested in sports, period. No matter what we do, we are not going to reach him. I mean, he barely knows who Allen Iverson is and he's 19 years old. That tells me that Zach Leonsis is not only not reading about sports, he's not watching them.

Zach Leonsis is the kind of person we should just not worry about. We are never going to get 100% of the audience, no matter what. If Zach Leonsis was watching ESPN, paid attention to sports, I'd be more worried.

But since he's not, it's not worth wasting our time and resources to figure out how to reach him. We're not going to reach him. Let's move on and figure out how to reach the people who might actually care about what we write.

 

If we're going to debate the popularity of Allen Iverson....In the most recent college classes I took -- less than a year ago -- I guarantee MOST of those kids couldn't tell you who he is.

But since the Allen Iverson things proves nothing noteworthy, I'll just say this. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of college-age kids who have zippy interest in reading the newspaper. The Leonsis kid is not the exception. Why? Cause he's a rich kid? Please. Rich kids have no interest in the newspaper. Poor kids have no interest in the newspaper.

Just one man's opinion....

 

But kids, in general, have never had an interest in reading the newspaper. Then they grow up, start paying taxes and feel the need to be more informed about the world immediately around them.

That will happen to this generation, too. The questions become, who is going to be there to supply said information, how will it be consumed and how can that delivery system be monetized.

Unfortunately, I have the answer to none of the above.