Pearlman: 'Press conferences suck'

Probably the best response yet on this thread. Not condemning, but provides an extremely reasonable and fair-handed view of the question at hand.

 

I've seen some horsebleep sportswriters call coaches by their first names and I've seen some terrific journalists address a coach occasionally as "Coach."

Most of your audience doesn't know whether you call the guy "Coach," "Pal" or "Nancy."

I don't use "Coach" when covering guys who are active but as I said way above, I will use it with an older guy who's retired because, first, any story stemming from is more likely to be a feature than hard news, and second, because they seem to like it.

Turning it into some defining thing for how much starch we have in our shorts is silly.

 

certainly a valid point of view shared by many here. yet i found this part curious: 'I don't use "Coach" when covering guys who are active'

well, why not? seems to me you've made your own judgment on the issue, that you're quite comfortable addressing those who are no longer coaches as 'coach' -- a nod of respect for someone's past, which i don't think anyone here has contended is to be frowned upon -- yet you also concede you don't address active coaches with their job title.

well, why not, if you're not concerned with the appearance you might be 'soft?' i'm not being snide here; i just find it curious.

i mean, we're not talking about passing someone in a hallway or hotel lobby or some other private setting and tossing them a, 'how ya doing, coach?' and the times you are in a gang-bang setting with a retired coach isn't very often whereas it's frequently the case with active coaches.

so, in the latter case, you use the coach's name in pressers or group sessions, correct? i dunno, just seems to me you've made a judgment yourself about who it's okay to call 'coach' and who it isn't.

or am i missing something?

as for this: 'Turning it into some defining thing for how much starch we have in our shorts is silly,' no doubt it should not be considered a 'defining thing' about starch usage. it can be an indicator, however; at least i've found that to be the case.

as noted earlier, perhaps this is a 'geographical thang.' it also might be a print vs. electronic media thang -- in the major n.y.-n.j. metro area, it's not uncommon to hear a tv or radio person use 'coach' when addressing their subject, but nobody here thinks of any of them as real journos anyway; but you'll never hear any print journo (other than a newbie) use 'coach' -- any who have are quickly derisively labeled as a 'foof.'

this is certainly an interesting lesson in culture, isn't it?

 

Holy crap. I know we all love masturbating over our made-up rules to try to make our profession sound more noble, but we can't call coaches "Coach" now?

 

Would you call someone you've never met before by their first name? Or would you call them, "Mr. Smith?" What if that person was substantially older than you? For a coach, the word "Coach" is like "Mr."

Until you're on a first-name basis with a source, I have no problem calling them "Coach" or "Mr." It's basically their name. Frankly, this whole debate is kind of silly. It doesn't make a hill of beans.

 

Shockey, I suppose I don't like calling an active coach "Coach" because, yes, it feels a little subservient. To me. When I'm doing it.

Again, I don't see how it impacts the question that follows the salutation, and it certainly doesn't impact what my audience gets from the story I produce.

But yeah, passing someone in the hall or using it to address an old guy as a sign of respect (or just cuz he seems to like it) is harmless enough.

What I was reacting to was the blanket prohibition for ever uttering "Coach." That struck me as over-the-top.

For instance, Some Guy raises an interesting point. If the reporter is much younger than the coach, saying "Coach" seems more appropriate than using the person's first name -- at least till invited. And sometimes an older reporter will address a young coach as "Coach" as a sign that he respects the coach's status, even when he's young enough to be the reporter's kid.

Yet I can see where, if the age gap is slight in either direction, it might sound kind of weinie for the reporter to use "Coach." But it still wouldn't mean he necessarily would do a weinie job.

 

I keep picturing Jessep demanding to be called colonel and then the judge showing him when he demands to be called judge.

 

Coach is deferential. It's like calling the priest Father if you're not Catholic, or a non-believer.

Most of them already think they're wiser/better/smarter than you, there's no need to feed it.

 

Wait a second, really? Father is deferential? I had no idea. As a non-believer, I don't think I've ever just bumped into a priest. But I assumed Father was just what you called them.

 

It's silly, perhaps, but sure has generated a nice cross-section of opinions.

what i find most silly now is equating a job title such 'coach' to a priest or naval officer, etc. guess now i better understand why some people deem a 'coach' as someone in a position in which the 'coach' is now overseeing more than just his team.

geez, why a coach's job title means he now merits being addressed by his job description is lol funny/borderline embarrassing to me. maybe i should start calling my sports ed, or any sports ed, 'sports ed' or 'chief;' and school-aged players should call us 'newspaper reporter.'

mr. or mrs. to any elder is certainly fine and considered polite; at a presser, if the coach is someone you don't know, sure, go with 'mr. smith,' to show you've been brought up proper, at which time most will insist you use their first name.

again, has anyone here ever heard a coach insist he be called 'coach' by th e media. i do not know of any coach who considers it preferable to be addressed as 'mr.' by media members younger than he is.

this is where i all becomes silly to me. once we're all professionals nobody checks our birth certificates to rule on when 'mr. or 'mrs.' is to be used. speak to someone with respect and you're ALWAYS fine. call a coach by their first name and you're ALWAYS fine.

call someone 'coach' if it floats your boat, fine by me. really. hey, i'm not the coach wondering why the heck is this reporter calling me coach? or the other journo at the presser thinking, 'what an assclown.' you're comfy doing it, you keep kicking every other journo's butt with hard-hitting questions and stories, you've got no worries in the world.

but i'm still left wondering why any journo would insist on using 'coach' when the alternative is accepted by all without ridicule and 'coach' can stir a discussion such as this one.

hey, matters not a pip to me which way you go. and if it matters not to you, then we're all good, aren't we?

fwiw: i'd bet there are at least a few young or aspiring sportswriters taking in this discussion who have decided, 'i'm NEVER going to call a guy 'coach' again when i'm a pro.' and i'd be willing to wager not a one is thinking, 'hmmm, i'd better address these guys as 'coach' when i'm covering them.'

eff me -- i thought i'd bid this thread adieu pages ago. i'm freakin' weak... and obviously bored.

 

This is the most ridiculous reason ever:

"B. You’re 38-years old with two kids. You were a college athlete yourself, and now you’re a sweater-wearing, pot-bellied, angry sports writer asking questions of 19-year-old kids who, in a year’s time, will be outearning you by roughly $10 million."

Poor thing
Get over yourself.

 

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/373373169_730fb3c183.jpg">