What constitutes a "helluva sports editor?"

To me, knowing that the guy has your back is huge. And the earlier post about not micromanaging is another biggie.

 

Paul Anger is often mentioned in this kind of conversation, and justifiably so. High standards ..... very, very tenacious. Great planning and word editing. No B.S. And developed writers and editors who have been in key jobs from coast to coast. Some of the "great sports editors" cited on other threads shouldn't be in the same conversation. Among current sports editors, I might cite Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, based on what I have observed and been told.

 

I have a question: How can an editor maintain high standards while at the same time not micromanaging and giving people room to do their thing?

It seems like too often those attributes conflict -- you back off, standards go to hell; you work with them until they get it right, they feel smothered; you finally have to step in to do it right, they feel undercut.

I know it's a fine line, and I'd like to know how the best have managed to get it right.

 

The relative helluvaness of a sports editor is usually in the eye of the beholder.

 

Sometimes it's not micromanaging; it's setting high standards.

 

If mine worked more than 35 hours per week, I'd be inclined to label him a "moderately involved sports editor."

 

The no B.S. part was what I appreciated most from Anger. If there was any office politics in that department, it must have gone right over my head because I did not notice any. So you could concentrate on your job and not worry about intramurals. When I interviewed for the job, I was at lunch with Paul and his deputy and Paul said, matter-of-factly, "You have a reputation for speaking your mind." I gulped. I asked him who told him that. He said, "Everybody." Then he said, "We like that here," and he told me about a former deskman, who by then was SE someplace else. Paul said, "He challenged us every day he was here. He made us better and we made him better. That's how it works here." You bet I was going to accept the offer when it was made a few days later. There was, after that lunch, no place I'd have rather gone. And I have to say that he was true to his word -- an unsual environment.

Another thing about Paul is that he was always keeping in touch with applicants even when there were no openings or the person wasn't quite ready. We started talking about two years before I wound up there. And he recommended me other places in the interim. One time I heard about an opening at another KR paper and called the SE. He said, "This is bizarre. I just got off the phone with Paul Anger and he recommended you as a candidate." I didn't get that job, but by the time that played out, there was an opening in Miami and that's when I went there.

Another thing. A story was breaking one night and I was taking feeds from several writers and monitoring the wires so I could put together the main. Paul comes over, looks at the jumbled notes on my screen and within seconds, said here's what we should do. I don't think I've ever seen someone process information as quickly and clearly as he did that night. He wasn't a show-off, but he's a very bright man.

One last thing. He pushed us harder than I've ever been pushed. But the day I showed up, after driving a good distance to move there, he said, "OK, we'll see you in a week." Now I had been prepared to start the next day. But I was being given a paid week to settle in and get acclimated. He said, "Trust me on this -- a week from now, you'll be glad you had that week." And of course he was right -- they were going to work my ass off. But he knew how to get the most from people.

 

Paul Anger sounds awesome -- just the kind of editor for whom I'd like to work.

 

That, to me, is what being an SE is all about. Bring in good people, trust your people, let them do their jobs, and push them to do their jobs better.

And, when it's needed, go to war for your people.

 

Re the question of micromanaging vs. setting high standards -- that's where people skills come in. An editor needs to know his staffers -- REALLY know them -- so that he can understand whom he needs to manage closely and whom he does not.

Now, is that possible in this day and age, where there are so many other brushfires to put out? I'm not sure I have an answer. But I know I have seen at least one editor who had no feel for his staff, and didn't care to have one. His only goal was to cover his own rear end. And that certainly doesn't work.

 

Some sports editors seem to favor certain sports or have a dislike of certain sports that influences what gets in the paper.

A good sports editor is knows the audience and it is reflected in the paper.

 

Yes.