Radio, newspaper, and my ethics

What I'm saying is, you're certainly quick to attack another journalist when you think he's wrong, yet you condemn other people for doing the same. But I guess I shouldn't expect any consistency of thought from you. Childish name-calling seems to be the most you can offer.

 

Surely you can see the difference between a first job that puts food on the table, and second job that makes the boat payment, right?

 

First of all, you just named a bunch of stories that in many instances, aren't even primarily reported by the "sports folk." They're handed off to business or legal or media or special investigative reporters. That's not to say you won't see any of 'em in your local sports section, but they are not even close to the primary subjects of your typical sports reporter.

Secondly, if cable rates, the mortality rates of pro wrestlers (who make up what percent of the population?), etc. are at the top of your "seriousness scale," you know you're in a business with very little importance in the grand scheme of things.

As for Mizzou's subsequent comments, I never said working in sports was easy; I said it was (relatively) unimportant. I'm sure the companies that make toys work hard too. And the tendency of people to pull out the sports section of a paper has nothing to do with it's importance. They pull it out expressly because it's a lot more fun to read, just like buying toys is a lot more fun than buying groceries.

 

All of which has nothing to do with the rightness of it.

 

Huh. That's weird. I see them reported on ESPN all the time. I just read an article on SI.com by Frank Deford about the pro wrestler mortality rates -- which the Chris Benoit murder/suicide fits into prominently. But not important. A quick Google news search shows articles about the new Sonics' owners intention to move the franchise on SI.com and SportingNews.com.

Cable rates is a very important topic to a very large number of people.

Thanks for leaving the other examples out, since they don't fit your model.

 

These threads have been weird to me.

Globe writers get paid for appearing on NESN, which is owned by the Red Sox, and I've never once seen anyone here cry conflict.

NY Daily News writers appear on SNY, which is owned by the Mets.

It goes on and on. It's in every market.

What about the guy many around here consider a god, Jason Whitlock? Columnist for the Star had a job at KCSP, which telecasts the Jayhawks. Also had a job at WHB, which telecasts the Royals.

The Cubs and the Chicago Tribune (also LA Times) have been mentioned several times.

Bottom line: Everybody's in bed with everybody. Conflicts are unavoidable. Best you can do is keep your nose clean, and if anybody asks you to pull a punch, that's when you quit a gig.

 

Actually, the only one that probably doesn't fit is the China story, and it's not like the coverage of that is exactly overwhelming. How many sports reporters you got tied up on that one?

Cable rates are very important? Yeah, how could we survive without cable TV?

But just to turn off my sarcasm for a moment, tell me about the Sonics stories. Were they just typical sports stories about the Sonics moving, or were they actually stories about how the people of Seattle were going to be impacted by a move (or conversely, a tax hike)? And if the latter, who reported them? A regular sports reporter or someone who deals specifically with more important "sports related" issues?

 

No, they're not unavoidable. Canzano could have easily avoided this one, but he chose the 80 grand instead.

 

You can't be serious. Have you read any of these stories? Not just on ESPN or SI, but the AJC or the SeaTimes or the other local papers affected by the issues? How do you think the stories break - it sure as hell isn't a business reporter in Seattle who finds a OKC business journal where one of the new owners says (in a quote) that they bought the team to move them of OKC. Nope. It was a (wait for it....) SPORTS WRITER. And these other stories have sports folk covering them, too. That's why sports folk can switch over to news side so easily - many have already covered cops and courts and investigative and the like because it was part of their beat.

And for the Sonics' issue...yes, a few were from non-sports reporters. But at some point the writers have to go to camp or a game or whatever. If they're already writing 500-plus bylines in one year, passing five or six to news-side can make a world of difference.

 

It's too bad we can't just end the thread on this post. Good work, Lugnuts.

 

Except for the huge article about the upcoming Olympics in SI a couple weeks ago.

And whether you think cable rates are important or not, plenty of people do. To many people, having cable TV is their main form of entertainment and social activity. It's what they can afford. When the rates are jacked up, it really matters.

I won't provide you with a bibliography of articles on the recent sale and threatened move of the Sonics; you can read them yourself and determine their value. I'll give you just one article, written by Seattle PI sports columnist Ted Mller more than a year ago, which forecast pretty much everything that's happened: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/278074_miller19.html

Imagine that, a sports columnist nailing it.

 

Actually, they aren't. On either count.