Simmons on sports writing

Any point Simmons makes on matters of day-to-day media coverage, he makes from what I like to call "professor's privilege," the ivory tower from which day-to-day drudgery seems often pointless from the professor's journey through Big Ideas. Though it may seem I begrudge him his point of view out of habit, I don't (no more than the lofty Christian authors who are professional theologians and book-writers and can dispense great wisdom) because I could appreciate the notion behind it. (Although I don't in his case; see below). But it doesn't mean Simmons has any insight into how a local news organization works. Or even what readers want. He's ESPN's appointed expert the professional baseball, basketball and football teams in New York, Boston and LA. Yes, he becomes by that expertise honestly. Sean Hannity comes by being a Republican douchebag honestly, too. But when Fox News plucked him out of a so-so drive-time show in Atlanta, it wasn't because he was an elite radio man. It's because he fit a very specific niche and he could zing it a little. When major media conglomerates choose to create a standard, it's generally created - the quality of the work notwithstanding.

That isn't to say Simmons doesn't do good work. He's clearly gifted (as are many writers without his platform). I've chuckled at and enjoyed some of his columns over the years. It's middlebrow stuff, but I'm not such a snob as to swear it off. On the contrary, it would now appear Simmons is. <i>No more pressers! No more reporters in the locker rooms! Stop talking to the stars! Why hasn't someone ever done an oral history on a big brawl in the NBA?</i> The guy drops the most basic cliches in the business in his own work -- what sportswriter hasn't told the daughter-loves-sports story in the last 15 years -- but wants profound changes in the sportswriting business itself, in part because some of his Olympian-seeming writers have been rightly stiffed for credentials. The 30/30 series is perfectly decent work, but it's not experimental cinema. Thank goodness for that; experimental/Pavlovian documentaries have spawned godawful reality TV shit. The 30/30 series is basic, solid craftsmanship built out of a rich archive of media work that Simmons would rather now didn't exist, many featuring local reporters who put in the years of immersion to reach the same kind of informed opinion Simmons has on his teams of choice.

I understand Simmons' "I'm-out-of-the-box" appeal -- especially from national writers who've deservedly graduated with honors from the grind to ponder heavier things -- but I don't think it's any friend of the most common journalist - local newspaper, TV and radio folks -- or bloggers who don't happen to write about teams in the very top markets. Far from diversity in media -- which the cattle call, however unsavory to the elite journalist, serves -- you'll have the opposite when you grind down the old standards. You'll have, functionally, charter schools, where a handful are selected, isolated, groomed and inculcated.*

<i>*Note: I understand I'm drawing my argument outward here, but in an attempt to assess the quality of the idea. Not to necessarily assert a slippery slope.</i>

Lugnuts,

While your example of the Red Sox series is a valid one, I think it's a situation where the BBWAA or whoever needs to continually lean on MLB to lean on Sox owners to fix the damn problem. I don't suspect it is a problem at many/most parks.

 

I know it's not the same thing, my point was we can get into such a routine of gamer, follo from the postgame, feature, presser, notebook, advance, next gamer -- all the while tweeting and blogging our "instant analysis" because everything has to be about being first and doing it now and identifying what's next -- there's room for taking a step back too.

Right after a game everybody is high strung, the players, coaches, writers, flacks, everyone. Would the story of the Eastern Conference Finals read differently now that everyone has had some time to cool off and meaningful reflection.

 

After slogging through a the grade school level slap flight that Moddy had to break up and some of the other posts on this thread ... I can blame Bill Simmons for something else.

 

Here's the way I look at it. The sports media is at war with team PR. It used to be a chummy relationship... then merely cordial.. then chilly... then a cold war... now it's all out war with missiles and shit.

Right now the sports media is getting its ass kicked. Sports media needs some special ops.

They've got all the power and we've got Jason Fuckin' Whitlock.

 

The war is over.

Professional and major-college teams are very close to no longer needing the traditional media.

And they're really heartbroken about it, obviously.

 

Not across the board.

Danny Snyder's been fighting this war for years, but that rock-hard season-ticket base seems about to crack -- and about time, given the years of grossly-subpar personnel evaluation . . . not to mention head coaches which are REALLY bad fits and/or overpaid.

 

All true, but what does this have to do with the mainstream media's relationship with sports teams?

 

Depends on the market.

You get out of the NYC/Boston corridor (where I think they are already in a position of not needing local media) and the majority of those teams need everything they can get in coverage, especially when they start losing.

What Simmons is trying to point out, I think, is that for some teams, and for some games, the traditional model needs to be tossed, but that strategy doesn't work in smaller markets or places that have less obsessive fans.

 

You think the Mets don't find the tabs of Santana useful, huh? Only several million of those out there.

 

For someone who so many people around here hate and dismiss as a "fake" sportswriter, Simmons sure seems to generate pages of converation on a daily basis.

Frankly, I'd be flattered if I was him. He obviously must be doing something noteworthy.

 

I look at his point like this: Sportswriting has devolved to the point where papers run wire or AP stories en masse, always favoring quantity over quality. Obviously, this is a financial thing.

Choice A: Pay 10 bucks (and I'm using this monetary value generically, just to make the point) for, "We need to step up in Game 6."

Choice B: Pay 200 bucks for, "In Game 5, I wasn't getting into the flow of the game because I hurt my ankle in practice the day before. I talked with my coaches and I'll do anything to play, but I'm really not healthy. I can't do what I want to do out there. It's an injury I've been dealing with all season, I just haven't talked about it until now."

Given the cash-strapped situation, I'd say the choice for most papers is obviously A. Get whatever you can as fast as you can for as cheap as you can.

If anything, Simmons' point should flatter beat writers. It's exactly what I want more of: More information from less people. I've sat through enough dreadful fucking press conferences where I had to hear 10 questions in a row along the lines of, "How much do you want to win this game?" (To which I want ONE player to respond, "I don't know, how much do you enjoy breathing?")

Yes, of course, the great beat reporters will get the quotes and info they need outside of these shitty gang bangs, but the point is, the majority of fans are fed the shit that comes from the gang bangs, because "what's quicker (and, more importantly, cheaper) is better" is the unilateral rule in journalism these days, at least as far as the bean counters are concerned.

Then again, Simmons' employer has an incredibly large part in creating this whole "zombie-quote syndrome" in the first place, so there's that, too.

 

Plenty, in Snyder's case, since he's specially-emphasized in-house "coverage" of his train wreck, giving as short shrift as possible to mainstream media which won't automatically kiss his ass (Forbes being a great recent asskiss example . . . )