The Lost Art of Sports Journalism

[Hostile]

Check the post history, it matches up with people like "KingTuna". If she posts under a different name, whatever, I just take things at face value.

KingTuna is not her. She doesn't post any more. She just reads.

 

[THUMPER]

Part of the problem is that a lot of people in journalism never learned "a discipline."

I know this isn't exactly what you're ranting about, but when I was getting my master's degree in journalism, the things college students turned in as articles amazed me. I worked for the school paper as its copy editor and the stuff turned in lacked in about every way possible, making me wonder how many of the writers even got into college.

Eventually in my career I made my way back to being a copy editor at a major newspaper after being a sports editor for small ones, and found out the same problems exist in the profession that I saw at the school. You wouldn't believe what a lot of articles look like before the editors get ahold of them.

What makes it tougher is that so many writers are now influenced by the ESPN school of journalism, where they want to go "boom" and "boo-ya" instead of doing their job of providing the facts and letting the fans draw the conclusions. That's our job ... we are the people's eyes, not the people's minds.

Now, of course, columnists are expected to give their opinions, but it seems to me there are more and more articles that read like columns these days than good, old-fashioned reporting. The facts have given way to flash with little or no substance to it.

That was a great post Flounder.

One point though, "a hold" is two words. Just sayin 'zall.

 

[burmafrd]

quick and easy way. That pretty much describes society today. Hard work and professionalism is not admired or rewarded.

When you have so called editors every bit as stupid and lazy as the so called writers then you get what we have now. No one holds anyone to high standards anymore.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Now, of course, columnists are expected to give their opinions, but it seems to me there are more and more articles that read like columns these days than good, old-fashioned reporting. The facts have given way to flash with little or no substance to it.

And Todd Archer is one of the few good, old fashioned reporters out there.

Op-ed's and columns understandably give their opinions, but it's so blatantly obvious that the goal of these writers is to formulate an opinion that creates controversy and basically brings readers to their column, whether or not that opinion is something they actually believe in, is backed up by solid facts...reason..and logic, and can be substantiated by numerous sources (anonymous or not).

Rick Gosselin back in 2007 talked about how he goes about making his picks and basically later said that he will pick the home team. So yeah, he's giving his opinion, but based on almost sub-juvenile logic and reason. If I was his editor, I would question this type of logic and wonder about his logic and reason in other columns he writes about. He's basically hired to be an NFL expert, but if that's his reason behind making picks, then ANYBODY can write a column making those picks.

The Slate did a detailed timeline showing Peter King's love affair and hatred with Brett Favre. And it was detailed that Favre was a Peter King source, so King would blatantly rave about Favre no matter what he did. However, once Favre started lying to King about his retirement and King couldn't trust him on whether he was retiring or not....King AND Sports Illustrated went on a campaign to smear Favre, ban talking about him in the magazine and to smear the Vikings and Brad Childress.

That stuff should NEVER happen. King shouldn't praise Favre at all costs for being his source and then shouldn't rip Favre just because Favre lied to him about his retirement. And for SI to enable and promote King's actions is so unbelievably pathetic, I can't help but question their integrity and credibility as well.

I do agree with the poster that readers/viewers should praise those sports writers/reporters/journalists that do provide good, informative and entertaining work and do it with professionalism, credibility and integrity. But I still feel that it's important to note that when those in the sports media whose work does not display those attributes, they must be called out every time they do it. That sends a message that both good reporting is wanted and that we have a lot of disdain for bad reporting.





YAKUZA

 

[gimmesix]

One point though, "a hold" is two words. Just sayin 'zall.

I couldn't remember and was too lazy to look it up (since I'm not being paid to edit my own work ).

 

[gimmesix]

Op-ed's and columns understandably give their opinions, but it's so blatantly obvious that the goal of these writers is to formulate an opinion that creates controversy and basically brings readers to their column, whether or not that opinion is something they actually believe in, is backed up by solid facts...reason..and logic, and can be substantiated by numerous sources (anonymous or not).

I don't exactly know why that seems to be the mind-set in the Dallas area, because you see more fair and balanced columns elsewhere. Most major newspapers have columnists who usually write things in support of the home team, unless they feel something negative needs to be pointed out for the betterment of the program. They strike a proper balance.

There is no jumping on "Camp Cupcake" bandwagons or just blatant promotion of controversial topics like we see in Dallas (though the New York tabloid media is about as bad).

I really believe that one Dallas writer (can't remember whom right now) had a lot of success with negative column writing, in drawing readers to his work, that it became the "in" thing to do in the area.

And the sad thing about it is that it still works. Which posts draw more views on message boards, ones praising the team or ones vilifying the team?