In the 1920s, The New Yorker published a piece that declared sports a “trivial enterprise” involving “second-rate people and their second-rate dreams and emotions.” The magazine went on to concede, however, that “the quality of writing in the sports pages is, in the large, much superior—wittier, more emotional, more dramatic, and more accurate—to the quality of writing that flows through the news columns.” Indeed, many of the greatest writers in journalism—Grantland Rice, W. C. Heinz, Jim Murray, Red Smith, to name but a few—found their home on the sports pages. Sports are big business and they have big themes: physical and intellectual tests, joy and heartbreak, hope and perseverance, teamwork and individual transcendence. The games and characters are ripe for vivid storytelling, and philosophic discourse about human nature and our culture. They are also part of a multibillion-dollar industry in need of dogged watchdog journalism.
But since the mid-1990s, two forces have diminished classic sports writing. First, television coverage in general has expanded, making hype and the sensational aspects of sports dominant. ESPN became a cultural and media juggernaut, sending fans to SportsCenter for highlights and scores, rendering game recaps and box scores in the next day’s newspapers obsolete. Newspapers gradually began reducing the size of game stories, dashing the more literary ambitions of their writers. Many of the more stylish writers migrated toward higher-profile and better-paying radio and television gigs, and the faster news cycle created a sports world in which the best reporting started getting sliced into smaller stories. It used to be that a star writer like Red Smith would cover the games and put all of his reporting into a substantial game story or one of his columns. “Red Smith was my inspiration to get into sports writing,” says Buster Olney, a senior writer at ESPN The Magazine who spent six years at The New York Times. “You read his writing and said, ‘Wow!’ Today, in four-hundred words you can get the basic details of the game story, but you miss the details and the anecdotes. It’s interesting, and important, to know how the players and managers think, why they made certain decisions. That’s the cool stuff, and it’s getting lost.”
The Web, meanwhile, did to sports writing what it has done to journalism more broadly: carved up the audience and exacerbated the more-faster-better mindset that cable TV began. Anyone can go to the Web anytime to get scores, rapid-fire articles about games, and gobs of analysis and statistics. There are generalized sports sites like ESPN.com and SI.com, hyper-focused team news blogs, sites run by the athletes themselves, and irreverent sports sites such as Deadspin.
All this dramatically changed the job of the sports beat writer and columnist, traditionally the bedrock of sports writing. Malcolm Moran, who is the Pennsylvania State University’s Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society, says 2003 marked a sea change in sports writing. In April of that year, autigers.com, an Auburn University fan site, was flooded with posts about sightings of Mike Price, the head football coach at archrival Alabama, at a strip club in Pensacola, Florida. The scandal became a national story, and Price was fired. “We passed a threshold,” says Moran, who spent his reporting career at USA Today, The New York Times, Newsday, and the Chicago Tribune. “The next nine-hundred and ninety-nine pieces of speculation on a fan site have to be checked out, and it could cost you your job if you miss one. It changed the business, and not for the better.”
In addition to covering the games and the teams, beat writers now must chase blog-based rumors—and blog themselves. It’s an untenable situation, and most reporters simply react to the daily torrent of news bites while the bigger stories and issues go wanting. Even columnists are producing more hackneyed items. The last Pulitzer for a sports column went to Jim Murray of the Los Angeles Times—in 1990. Mark Saxon, a beat writer for the Orange County Register, says today’s sports journalism is good for hardcore fans and fantasy league players looking for an edge, but the quality of the coverage and the overall storytelling have suffered.
Good thoughts. But I think sports journalism is also missing something that, say, government journalism largely isn't: equal access. In-depth essay writers have to have access to their subjects. In the sports world, writing negatively about your subject, however deserving, can mean you're no longer writing about them ... at least not from firsthand knowledge -- especially if you're not at a big publication.
And if you're imagining the security guards of the No Fun League tossing out a gray-haired pencilhead, think again. My limited experience says you're probably best imagining your local colleges tossing out 20-somethings who write for peanuts for your local paper. Here schools enforce a myriad of madeup crap, trespassing laws, school policy, conference agreements, TV exclusivity contracts and other nonsense at the expense of access. With that as a constant threat, an individual or school or sport will never get the watchdog it deserves.
As seen here.
#1 Posted by Sam N., CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 04:02 PM
Could not agree more with this article. I am a sportswriter, and in six months working for my new newspaper I've only gotten to write one longform story. Everybody loved it - readers, editors, sources for my other beats who happened to pay attention to the byline - but there is never any room. I mostly do Q&As or 10-inch stories for games. I still try to make every game story as described above, but there just isn't enough room in the pages or enough editors with enough time to read long stories anymore. And that sucks.
#2 Posted by Ricky T., CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 01:07 PM
Thank you!! Finally someone with the guts and brains to really tell it like it is. As a former sports journalist, I appreciate how you break down the demise of newspaper sports writing. I agree with your assessment that editors and others in positions of leadership in the print media, particularly newspapers, are lacking leadership skills. But because newspapers are undergoing economic difficulties, the corporations that own them seem only interested in hiring the cheapest labor possible ... there are few true storytellers in newsrooms anywhere these days. The World Wide Web isn't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean good journalism doesn't have its place in our "need it now" society.
#3 Posted by Diego A., CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 02:26 PM
Of course, anyone who cites CNNSI.com, a brand that disappeared almost six years ago, probably could use a little help of their own. Sports Illustrated rebranded its online presence as SI.com in February 2003. Might be worth a quick edit.
#4 Posted by J.D., CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 04:40 PM
Great article, with one minor quibble: Rick Reilly is a great writer? I'm guessing/hoping Mr. Poole hasn't read him in the last five years.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 07:10 PM
really smart writing ....i love how the history of sports writing is framed and i think Gary Poole is an excellent writer
#6 Posted by elizabeth Fowler, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 08:43 PM
There is a great deal of truth in this piece, but I'll disagree on one thing. The advent of ESPN and the internet have freed sports writers from accounting for the nuts and bolts that clutter game stories -- dutifully noting that Manny Ramirez went 2-for-4 and that Kevin Garnett had 24 points and 12 rebounds -- so they can concentrate on Buster Olney's "cool stuff."
Even in the 10 inches that the incredible shrinking newspaper affords these days, a writer can focus his story on the key play and what the participants have to say about it. A more disciplined writer can still be dramatic.
But pity the beat writer who not only must account for everything produced by a competitor but also the dribblings of goobers pounding away on their basement computers in their underwear.
#7 Posted by Jeff D., CJR on Thu 8 Jan 2009 at 12:26 AM
I think you nailed the essence of how sports journalists can recapture their 'glory', but I think you missed the mark in terms of bloggers intentions. I would say a lot of bloggers 'do' have the skills that mainstream journalists possess. I think, like in journalism, there are degrees of bloggers. You've got bloggers that take their work very seriously, who are typically representing a blogging network such as Sports Blog Nation, who recruits bloggers based on their journalistic skills (These bloggers even have to demonstrate their blogging ability –writing style- prior to ever getting their voice out there). There are a lot of blogs out there that are horrible and ruin it for the lot (I don't care for Deadspin to be honest), but I think the same can be said about College Papers and even mainstream papers as well (NY Daily News).
As far as bloggers having that mission, I think most do to an extent, but that's where Sports Journalists have the edge, they have access most bloggers only dream about having. You made a point about Sports Journalists having a shortfall: 'homerism'. That's what thrives for bloggers. Most of us could care less about breaking stories or being the first to report this or that. We gather to see what our fellow fans think and feel about our respective teams and the progress or lack thereof they have made.
The reason I got into blogging initially was because there wasn't a centralized Tampa Bay Buccaneers news hub that provided all of the information about the team at any given moment. I had to go here and there to gather my information. At the end of the day, sports fans just want all of the readily available information at their finger tips. Most times they have to decipher 1,000 word write-ups to get that information and that's how blogs developed. They are very fast and straight to the point. Take a look at Metsblog.com for example. Matthew Cerrone essentially regurgitates what other sports journalists or beat writers are reporting and he gets straight to the point and adds his own opinion to the situation as a diehard and well educated Mets fan.
Sports Journalism in newspapers is dead for the most part. Like you said, they are outdated prior to ever hitting their targets front porch. Sports Journalists need to embrace the internet and its beckoning readers. Free and constantly updated content would work wonders for Sports Journalists if their newspapers would embrace the new medium. Some get that and as soon as the rest do we'll all be better for it. The perception that 'bloggers' aren't as skilled as Sports Journalists needs to fall by the waist side as well; sports fans are smart, they aren't going to read somebody that attacks, essentially their own kind. It comes off as amateurish and ignorant, case in point, Buzz Bissinger. Rather than exposing Will Leitch for the hack that he was, he stooped to his level by cursing at him and never getting his true point across. As far as the blogger community is concerned, Buzz came off as the village idiot. His whole argument against Will came via comments from Will's community. Anybody that has the slightest idea of how a Blog operates knows that the comment section is full of crazies, folks spewing their venom, and sarcastic individuals. That is especially expected from a site such as Deadspin which is essentially the National Inquirer of Sports. Reputable Sports Blogs like I mentioned throughout this email filter the comments in their posts and attempt to breed respectful readers and commentary.
I think you summed up the situation very well though, beyond the two points I made.
#8 Posted by JScott, CJR on Thu 8 Jan 2009 at 07:04 PM
“I've had many writing heroes, writers who have influenced me. ...When I was very young as a sportswriter I knowingly and unashamedly imitated others ... But slowly, by what process I have no idea, your own writing tends to crystallize, to take shape. Yet you've learned some moves from all these guys and they are somehow incorporated into your own style. Pretty soon you're not imitating any longer.” RED SMITH
This is a timely bit of writing from Mr. Poole. It captures the moment. The Senator predicts that in a few more years new digital imprints will emerge and the reading public will get the stories that we need. It's a need that is part of our DNA. Since Achilles tore his first tendon we have loved sports writing and it won't die now!
#9 Posted by The Senator, CJR on Fri 9 Jan 2009 at 11:06 PM
"The perception that 'bloggers' aren't as skilled as Sports Journalists needs to fall by the waist side as well...."
'Waist side'?
QED
#10 Posted by mz, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 03:15 PM
Having entered newspaper journalism almost 40 years ago with the ambition of covering MLB, I concur with and lament the quality of good sports journalism now, although I must say the writer left out a few of the better writers, including Roger Angell and Tom Boswell of the Washington Post. Boswell's "Why Time Begins on Opening Day" inspired me to write stories, not scores.
#11 Posted by Jodi Goalstone, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 03:33 PM
there are many more names to add to the high quality list. some that come right to mind: plaschke in la, thiel in seattle, roberts, price and company at sports illustrated, knapp, ratto and ostler and ratto in araton and vecsey at the times, albom and rosenberg in detroit, bondy and lupica at the ny daily news, o'connor at the bergen record, several at yahoo and espn.com. and let's not kid ourselves. the so-called glory days were inundated with half-literate hacks on the take from the teams they covered. yes, the net has fundamentally changed the business and many of the changes are all about feeding nuggets of nothingness. but overall there is probably more talent, smarter and better-educated people writing sports now than there were 50 years ago.
#12 Posted by writeon22, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 07:07 PM
No reference to writers named 'Lardner'? Ring, John?
Forgotten or not esteemed these days?
#13 Posted by susan lardner, CJR on Wed 21 Jan 2009 at 06:27 PM
Blogs and newspapers share the same bell curve: there are some very good writers doing blogs, most are average, some are awful. And so it has always been with newspapers.
Those who complain/bemoan what has happened to newspapers forget that sports journalism, like everything else, is in a state of constant evolution. Sports journalism changed dramatically with the advent of television. Talk radio started beat writers on a constant chase after rumors. Regional sports channel began televising post game interviews that were once the domain of beat writers. It is was it is.
Long form journalism is under assault across the board, not just in sports. Newspapers as we know them will all but disappear in the next five years, victims of their own mismanagement, corporate ownership. and the current severe economic crisis. Magazines are also falling by the wayside. But as has been pointed out, readers still want these kinds of stories, and it will be up to us for find the right platform.
#14 Posted by Jon Pessah, CJR on Sun 25 Jan 2009 at 04:52 PM
No matter was it being written here, a newspaper story, if given the proper space, can provide more color, more news, more information than any television, radio or web broadcast, and certainly more than any blogger can give.
I'm in my fourth year as a sports writer for a newspaper and my biggest issue with this industry is what everyone's talking about. We can provide what everyone else can't. People might hear a quote on TV or radio, but we'll tell them what the context it.
As for blogs, they don't have to worry about getting information wrong. They'll put whatever they please out there. And they definitely don't have to worry about getting sued. Ahh, such job security. I'll take my job any day of the week.
#15 Posted by JW, CJR on Tue 27 Jan 2009 at 01:31 AM
Nice article. I think it's worth mentioning that the New York Times sports section is probably one of the most over-looked in the industry. They're one of the few newspapers still doing quality, narrative sports journalism and their game stories are much better than most of their competitors.
#16 Posted by jd, CJR on Wed 28 Jan 2009 at 03:18 PM
I have a couple of suggestions for sports editors.
First, I see a lot of suburban papers trying to cover the pro and major college sports while they ignore their local sports programs. If you have limited resources, leave the pro and major college daily coverage to the wires and increase your local coverage. Your readers are looking for coverage of what's going on in their neighborhood, and most likely they're going to get their pro and college stories from the major dailies anyway. I'm not saying you ignore the pros and colleges, but treat them with occasional columns and features that aren't eating up your daily staff time.
Next, start covering sports that aren't the major ball sports (football, basketball, baseball, hockey in northern climates). There are a lot of great stories flying under the radar because their sports get minimal coverage. Not only are these great stories, they're more memorable because they're different than what's found in just about any other newspaper. I spent nearly two decades as a sports reporter/sports editor, and I was fortunate to be a finalist (top 10 in the nation) three times in the Associated Press Sports Editors writing contest. Two of my awards were for event coverage -- for a story about the Alaska Mountain and Wilderness Classic and story about the Matanuska Peaks Challenge. My other award was for a news story about a local kid making the major leagues, a kid who happened to have been born with a malformed right hand so he pitched and caught using his left hand (using a style similar to Jim Abbott's). If you read any of the annual books in the Best American Sports Writing series, you'll see a similar variety of stories that aren't about the big game that everybody saw on TV.
#17 Posted by WayUpNorthInAlaska, CJR on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 05:03 AM
As a 10-year sportswriter and columnist still working in the field, the problem isn't with a lack of editorial leadership, it's the writers themselves not putting the quality and care into their own craft, period. Maybe they're burned out from blogging and tweeting and podcasting and video journaling. Maybe they're not encouraged. Maybe. I'm more inclined, however, to go with my experience and say there just aren't that many sportswriters who are one, naturally gifted writers, and two, are constantly seeking to improve their writing by actively reading the best in the country at every opportunity.
I personally used to love writing a game story (I'm strictly a columnist now) because it's the challenge of a haiku — how to tell a compelling, narrative story when you have such strict parameters governing the format — the team's names, what sport it is, the records, where it was played, the weather, the crowd, the key plays, the context of the game itself as it relates to the season, the storylines inside the game, etc., etc. And the more writers covering the game, the better, because that was an opportunity to write the best game story possible and truly "beat" your competition in terms of quality, not details. I'd always read everyone else's game stories, and on any major beat you learn quickly who can cut it, who loves it and who is just there collecting a check, eating the free food and looking for the nearest strip club. One such writer used to tell me, 'I set the bar so low that I can get over it just by getting out of bed." To them, and they are a majority, gamers, notebooks and pressers are burdens to be borne, not opportunities for great writing.
The great writing is out there, probably in your local paper if you take the time to look. And while it's tempting to think that's not the case, that the only great writers were in the distant past because the advent of ESPN and talking heads on television -- print columnists included -- have dumbed down the sports dialogue to sound bites, shouting and outrageous "takes", it's just not the case.
#18 Posted by Ron Aiken, CJR on Thu 2 Apr 2009 at 03:18 PM