Shaughnessy: "We now have a bad connection"

Shouldn't the axiom of "go where the access is" play a percentage in what profile you pursue, though? Looking back over your career, including your most recent, rather excellent story, wouldn't it be fair to say that some, if not all, of your best work <i>didn't</i> come from the biggest stars in their chosen field?

 

I appreciate your position, but we could not disagree more. I do, in fact, think people would love to read about everyday athletes (who are more extraordinary, in many cases, than superstars).

My proof? Reality television. People want to read about people just like them, doing great things/awful things/unusual things. They're tired of stars who let them down.

 

Alma - Who's to say that Shaughnessy hasn't done some columns like that recently. For example, you mentioned his book. About as off the beaten path as they come.

But at some point, when the Celtics are in the Eastern Conference Finals, you have a responsibility as the lead columnist (co-leads there, I guess) to cover it for your readers, who don't want to hear your excuses about difficult access.

I always understood the gang banging around playoff/BCS time. It's a logistical clusterfuck. What pisses me off, personally, is when I want to talk to a backup offensive lineman during some mundane game week and have to make my case to a skeptical SID who wants to know what we're going to talk about, how it's relevant, etc., who then presents that case to his boss before coming back later with, "Coach just doesn't think he's earned the right to talk yet. Sorry about that."

It's not like stars are the only ones that are hard to get to.

When I try to sell off-the-beaten path stories to my SE, it's a very difficult thing to do. Especially in this age of web hits, web hits, web hits!!!

 

He said what I have been saying on this board for years.

1. Too much media.
2. Too many handlers.
3. Too much structure.

I'll get flamed for this, but the one good thing about the recession and the layoffs is LESS media.

The atmosphere in the Red Sox clubhouse for a member of the working media is particularly bad. Even worse than it is in New York.

 

if you misinterpret people so stupidly, no wonder you can't get access.

 

On Wednesday:
Joe Sullivan: Game 5, tonight. What time you getting out there?
Dan Shaughnessy: Not tonight, Joe. Access has been bad. I can't even get a question in to Cassell.
Sullivan: Really?
Shaughnessy: There's a Boston Cannons column I can get out of the way. All they players were great. They talked and everything. Even used complete sentences and not once did they use the cliche: 'It is what it is.'
Sullivan: MARTY! Somebody get Baron over here, now!!!

 

We cry for access when what we really need is more time -- to write and to think before writing.

And, yes, more access is better than less access. The problems start when we equate access with reality. We have lunch with a player and pretend we know him. We turn a friendly interaction with a waitress into something much more than a friendly interaction with a waitress. We decide players are good guys or bad guys based upon how they treat us, which is not only absurd but intellectually dishonest. But, hey, if he's a good quote...

 

Yes, Alma, absolutely, which is why I don't write much about sports anymore. It's my least favorite universe to fly through.

But occasionally, we have to write about stars. There are only so many stories about bullpen catchers you can write before people start to ask about that other guy, hitting all the home runs.

Again, though, that's not to say that life's bullpen catchers don't have good stories to tell, and that we shouldn't listen to them.

And henry, read your post and tell me what I misinterpreted. Please, educate me on how I might become a better reporter.

 

To the point about there being "too much sports media".

Sure . . . so go ahead and figure out a way to simply include only the best. Good luck with that.

There are tens of thousands of pro tennis players . . . but only 128 got to step on the court in Paris this week.

But the 3,467th best sports journalist still gets a Super Bowl credential.

 

I would say it's trust.

Look at the Gundy thread. If everything is fair game, in some people's opinion, why would an athlete allow someone inside?

If the athlete is convinced that there is a filter used by the writer, then maybe a person might be allowed inside their outside lives.

I would also consider that for some athletes from very depressed areas, trusting people is not easy.

 

Also, Alma, there's an ugly trickle down effect at play here. The lesser lights see how the stars behave, and they think, If I'm going to be a star, that's how I need to behave.

That's how you end up with scrub middle relievers building the same walls around themselves as Kobe Bryant has around himself.

 

You chose....poorly.