Simmons on sports writing

The first and second rounds of golf tournaments are really the only time that watching on TV is preferable, just because so much is going on and you can only be so many places at once. I hate sitting in the press tent so much, but I'd also hate to be way out on the course when a surprise guy finishes a round and you're not around 18 to snag an interview.

 

Half of your posts are claiming that people are misrepresenting what you said.

At some point, it's you.

 

If your point was valid, you wouldn't need such a blatant exaggeration to make it.

You don't separate your work from others while watching the game. Sure, you can be planning and sometimes you are writing as you go, but that is not when the most important work is done. You do it before. You do it during the week. You do it in the post-game interviews. You come up with questions that you don't trust somebody else to come up with and find a way to ask them without having to share the answers. This is what Simmons doesn't get. You should know this, too, but apparently I overestimated you.

 

C'mon, don't be pissy. You know you play the "nobody said that" card at every turn.

And to the point, EVERYTHING you do comes off the game itself. So intimating -- no, actually saying verbatim -- "During the game is arguably the least important part of a sports journalists's (sic) job." is wrong.

 

Lugs, I covered events in China at the Olympics where big names never once left the media workroom. Watched on TV, pool quotes, filed, went to the hotel. If you can't even walk 500 feet to the mixed zone when someone is paying you to be on the other side of the world, you have no business being there.

 

And then there are those who don't leave the hotel. Great TV, internet, no crowds, clean bathroom, room service.

Will your readers know? Maybe not. But your colleagues do.

 

I'm certainly not recommending not being at your event, but neither do I think that your colleagues' reactions should influence how you cover an event.

 

A lot of people think game coverage is the be-all, end-all of sports journalism. Especially with the fact that now games and their results are easily available to anyone who is interested, it's tough to rise above the mob of people chasing game stories that can only have so many angles. Readers would just as soon read an entertaining blogger's take from the television than they would a "trained!!!" journalist who was in the press box and the locker room.

The events are the core product of sports, but the real stories are usually found away from the competition. Sure, there are exceptions, as when something unexpected occurs.

But if you're covering college or pro? The opportunities - though they may be few in the bigger sports - to find out what makes certain individuals tick isn't going to happen in the post-game scrum.

Now, if you're doing high schools, then sure, your little community might eat up your writeup of East Podunk vs. Southwestern Nowheresville. Until some local parent who happens to have a bit of wit, a bit of time on their hands, and Internet access starts a good blog.

And your competitors.

Particularly in a world of layoffs and more competition for jobs, it's not wise to be the one everyone saw being lazy in the media center or greedy at the buffet.

Yeah, what your co-workers and competition think doesn't matter. Do what you want! Screw it! Yeah!!!!!

See you in the bread line.

 

You used to make occasionally cogent arguments before you decided to troll me and dispute everything I say whether you believe what you're saying or not. It's made you lose your credibility in here.

Don't work too hard to dispute that. It's not worth your time.

 

Laughable.

With WHOM?

Here comes the wave, I'm sure. Your PM Inbox is about to explode with condemnations of me.

Credibility?

On an Internet message board?

Can you at least TRY to stay on topic?

Look, let's be honest here. You can't dispute what I said. You're a wannabe loudmouth trying to swing his member around here, and your entire experience is based on a very small sample size in a very tiny world.

NOT following the idea of "Don't care about what your colleagues and competition think" has done well for me.

How have your philosophies done for you?

 

Being pissy = pointing out that you are full of it? I'll try to remember that for next time.

You wrote that, "In a perfect world, for beat writers, there would be no games at all. You'd just spend all day writing stories surrounding the games that don't exist."

That is not even close to what I said.

Your statement suggests that beat writers would be happier without the actual games, which is miles away from saying it is not as important as what is done before and after the game.

Everything in game coverage may come out of the game, but the most important work is done before and after. Any sports journalist who doesn't understand that is beyond help.

 

Yes. It certainly made you a shining example of success in this business.