Who's on deck to be a sports editor?

[leo1]

seems to me that being an SE would almost be more attractive than being a writer, assuming you can put up with being in management and attending meetings. they might lay off writers but they won't lay off the SE.

 

[thegrifter]

seems to me that being an SE would almost be more attractive than being a writer, assuming you can put up with being in management and attending meetings. they might lay off writers but they won't lay off the SE.

but they will hold back bonuses and find every other way to make you work as much as possible for as little as possible.
Plus, management MBOs are kinda subjective. A friend of mine has been getting her MBO for the last three years. She was counting on it this year, only to hear that none of the managers are getting them.
We're all gettin screwed in this biz.

 

[shotglass]

Not to harp on an old theme. But we're not all gettin' screwed in this biz. Some of us get treated just fine.

(Wouldn't want to be an SE, though.)

 

[lono]

seems to me that being an SE would almost be more attractive than being a writer, assuming you can put up with being in management and attending meetings. they might lay off writers but they won't lay off the SE.

Being in management and attending meetings are two things that are horrible about the job in the first place.

And don't for a minute think SE's are safe. Unless an SE is a superstar, he/she can get let go at a moment's notice, often at a considerable cost savings, because the SE gets replaced by the ASE, a reporter moves up to ASE and no new hires are made.

The staff shrinks in size and so does the payroll.

 

[EE94]

seems to me that being an SE would almost be more attractive than being a writer, assuming you can put up with being in management and attending meetings. they might lay off writers but they won't lay off the SE.

Being in management and attending meetings are two things that are horrible about the job in the first place.

And don't for a minute think SE's are safe. Unless an SE is a superstar, he/she can get let go at a moment's notice, often at a considerable cost savings, because the SE gets replaced by the ASE, a reporter moves up to ASE and no new hires are made.

The staff shrinks in size and so does the payroll.

you win the set of steak knives

 

[lono]

seems to me that being an SE would almost be more attractive than being a writer, assuming you can put up with being in management and attending meetings. they might lay off writers but they won't lay off the SE.

Being in management and attending meetings are two things that are horrible about the job in the first place.

And don't for a minute think SE's are safe. Unless an SE is a superstar, he/she can get let go at a moment's notice, often at a considerable cost savings, because the SE gets replaced by the ASE, a reporter moves up to ASE and no new hires are made.

The staff shrinks in size and so does the payroll.

you win the set of steak knives

Yeah, well, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind's blowing.

 

[friend of a friend]

As a general question this is interesting. Do you think as many people in this business want to be a sports editor as opposed to 10, 20 years ago? Does the climate of the business nowadays make it less attractive to, say, move from a beat/columnist job into the editor's chair or from the top desk spot to editor?

And I assume we're mostly talking about the bigger papers.

I was going to ask the same question. I've told my boss a few times that I would never, ever want his job. He does it very well, but I'd quit after about a week.

When I first started in this biz, more than a decade ago, a SE was ALL I wanted to be. I switched papers five years later to take a promotion to ASE. Great job! I mean a great job. After a year or so, I quickly realized, while I loved my job as ASE, there was no way in heck I ever wanted to be a sports editor. No frick'in way!
In the last few years my opinion hasn't changed.

Ditto