No, you CAN'T root in the damn press box

[playthrough]

Back to the original post ... for Chrissakes don't call him "Coach Prime." My shop has been using that in headlines and I'm about to lose my mind. And don't tell me it's an SEO play either.

 

[jr/shotglass]

In that case, you might as well go full homer.

 

[Bubbler]

Let me pose a question: Who is serving the reader more: the fanboi writer or the curmudgeon who's been on the beat 25 years, doesn't break any news (because the national people all do), and clearly hates his job and readers (and the contempt he feels for both shows daily in his writing)?

I think your question is flawed from the start. Both of those people exist, perhaps literally in some cases, but most of the time, it's shades of gray with both. It's also flawed because serving the reader is a multi-pronged proposition. There is no one-size fits all "reader" to be served. Even within a beat, there's a bazillion different things that readers want and widely varying levels of how much they want. Some want to know every last detail about the third-string left guard. Some think that is overkill.

As a writer stuck between the oldsters and the youngsters currently? I'm not sure the cliche of the curmudgeon really plays out like that. Perhaps they adapt at a begrudging pace, perhaps they bitch to high heaven about it, but most DO adapt.

My current beat has a TON of writers who write for web sites that definitely have a fanboi bent, but who are not necessarily fanbois themselves. They feed the beast to pay the bills. All power to them and many of them are talented waiting for a better chance.

As for objectivity? It is important for a reason no one has brought up yet - so sources don't start to think the fanbois are the model for how we handle our jobs. They think it anyway, but there has to be a separation of church and state somewhere between journalist and source and it's a separation of church and state that we are 100% in charge of maintaining. Otherwise, what's the point of having a professional set of standards?

What I don't like about the erosion in this principle is that by giving in to the temptation to not be objective, we erode the way WE decide to handle OUR jobs. Journalism is our playing field, not theirs.

I understand that there are different horses for different courses within the media world. I speak only for beat writers. I am not equipped to be judgmental on how TV does their job. And it's unfair to lump TV folks into a one-size-fits-all cliched definition anyway. I've been around some really great TV folks who take their journalism seriously. I've been around some TV folks who are an embarrassment. They'd fit right in with some of the writers I've been around who are equally embarrassing.

Separate from that? It is NOT hard to put aside your emotional attachments to be a professional.

However, in putting aside your emotional attachments? No matter what beat you have, whether you cover a team you grew up loving, or, cover a team you have zero fan connection to, you still have to understand what those fans value to understand part of what is important to your beat. You can't hole yourself in a journalism ivory tower. You always have to be master of the zeitgeist.

I think the vast majority of writers understand that and the successful ones embody it.

 

[Roscablo]

Back to the original post ... for Chrissakes don't call him "Coach Prime." My shop has been using that in headlines and I'm about to lose my mind. And don't tell me it's an SEO play either.

I did it out of spite. It doesn't translate well on a forum! It is insane how it caught on, but he is good at marketing.

 

[maumann]

I think your question is flawed from the start. Both of those people exist, perhaps literally in some cases, but most of the time, it's shades of gray with both. It's also flawed because serving the reader is a multi-pronged proposition. There is no one-size fits all "reader" to be served. Even within a beat, there's a bazillion different things that readers want and widely varying levels of how much they want. Some want to know every last detail about the third-string left guard. Some think that is overkill.

As a writer stuck between the oldsters and the youngsters currently? I'm not sure the cliche of the curmudgeon really plays out like that. Perhaps they adapt at a begrudging pace, perhaps they bitch to high heaven about it, but most DO adapt.

My current beat has a TON of writers who write for web sites that definitely have a fanboi bent, but who are not necessarily fanbois themselves. They feed the beast to pay the bills. All power to them and many of them are talented waiting for a better chance.

As for objectivity? It is important for a reason no one has brought up yet - so sources don't start to think the fanbois are the model for how we handle our jobs. They think it anyway, but there has to be a separation of church and state somewhere between journalist and source and it's a separation of church and state that we are 100% in charge of maintaining. Otherwise, what's the point of having a professional set of standards?

What I don't like about the erosion in this principle is that by giving in to the temptation to not be objective, we erode the way WE decide to handle OUR jobs. Journalism is our playing field, not theirs.

I understand that there are different horses for different courses within the media world. I speak only for beat writers. I am not equipped to be judgmental on how TV does their job. And it's unfair to lump TV folks into a one-size-fits-all cliched definition anyway. I've been around some really great TV folks who take their journalism seriously. I've been around some TV folks who are an embarrassment. They'd fit right in with some of the writers I've been around who are equally embarrassing.

Separate from that? It is NOT hard to put aside your emotional attachments to be a professional.

However, in putting aside your emotional attachments? No matter what beat you have, whether you cover a team you grew up loving, or, cover a team you have zero fan connection to, you still have to understand what those fans value to understand part of what is important to your beat. You can't hole yourself in a journalism ivory tower. You always have to be master of the zeitgeist.

I think the vast majority of writers understand that and the successful ones embody it.

Nicely stated.

 

[Azrael]

By definition the relationship between the press and the institutions it covers is adversarial.

If it isn't adversarial, it isn't journalism. It's marketing.

So whether we're talking about the county sewer commission meeting, the high school baseball tournament, or a White House press conference, the reporter is in attendance to convey to the reader or the viewer the facts of what happened, and to ask questions on their behalf.

Columnist, curmudgeon, blogger or beat writer we're not in attendance to root for anything.

At least we shouldn't be.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

Just pointing out the dichotomy of shitting on the fanboi while possibly praising or at least accepting the old veteran, no matter how much he obviously hates most of his meatball readers.

And while the former are exploding on the scene, there are still plenty of the latter in most of the major sports cities.

If I realized people were going to attempt to earnestly answer my question, I would have asked it differently. See ^^^ for my underlying point.

 

[MNgremlin]

In that case, you might as well go full homer.

Just because I root for my alma mater and people know it, doesn't mean I let it affect my writing in a negative way. In fact, I let my fandom fuel my writing.

Rooting interests don't have to be a bad thing. It's part of who you are. I know what the local fans of the team want to read because I am one myself. I've been following some pro blogs and forums for decades. I read how people react to local news/sports stories on social media. I know what fans want from a news story because I've been right where my readers are. I know the types of stories that appeal to "fanbois." I know what drives clicks both at my small daily and across the state.

 

[MNgremlin]

Columnist, curmudgeon, blogger or beat writer we're not in attendance to root for anything.

At least we shouldn't be.

Columnist, curmudgeon, blogger or beat writer, you are still a human being. There needs to be a separation between your role as a writer and as a resident, but it can still be used to fuel and inform your writing.

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

I'm harder on my team as a fan than anyone who roots for a rival school ever could be.

The issue is, a lot of people don't live like that. Some of the local coverage of Penn State should come with pom poms.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

I'm harder on my team as a fan than anyone who roots for a rival school ever could be.

The issue is, a lot of people don't live like that. Some of the local coverage of Penn State should come with pom poms.

The good news I can't think of any issue at Penn State where the vast majority of the press corps sporting pom poms could become a problem.

 

[Azrael]

Columnist, curmudgeon, blogger or beat writer, you are still a human being. There needs to be a separation between your role as a writer and as a resident, but it can still be used to fuel and inform your writing.

Sure, but I think even (or especially) in the smallest markets we have be on guard against self-censorship.

We have to be willing to tell the neighbors the truth. In fact, whether they know it or not, they're counting on us to do just that.

And sometimes that truth is pretty upsetting, and people's feelings are pretty fragile.

I'm not busting on you specifically, believe me, but the job description for journalists everywhere is fairly simple. And impossibly complicated.

Tell the truth.