It's all a sham.
I'm convinced that I've been had. Certainly I've been played; now the question is to figure out how badly I've been took and what I can do about it.
What am I talking about?
This blog is a farce, a tease, a futile attempt for me to enter the sensationalized world of sportswriting. I often joke about "creating a second career for myself if economics doesn't work out." What a joke.
You only have to sit and watch about thirty seconds of "Cold Pizza," "Quite Frankly," or "Around the Horn" to recognize that an entire profession is basically dying. Gone are the days where a player would get angry by reading something unkind (but possibly true) about himself in the newspaper. No, if a player wants to get served, he only has to turn on his TV, where he can get served 24 hours a day by a host of journalists, former athletes, and announcers, all of whom have their own take on a player.
I watched a little of "First and 10" this morning, and much to my chagrin, John Kruk had found his way on the screen to analyze football. He made some general points that could have been done by 1) robots, 2) 12-year olds, 3) anyone who had been to a fantasy football website in the last four years, 4) the band Simple Plan, and, well, you get the point. After Kruk made some ludicrous claim knocking the Saints, Skip Bayless (the calming force, the voice of reason) couldn't help but take a swipe at Kruk, which set off some testosterone-laden yelling match.
Last night, while watching Sportscenter, I saw Sean Salisbury take a stab at talking baseball with Peter Gammons, which was roughly equivalent to me talking economics with Milton Friedman. And I'm going to grad school in econ... Salisbury hasn't ever done anything baseball-related.
It's difficult to make something legitmate. It really is, and for some time, sportswriting was legitimate. When greats such as Dick Schaap ruled the landscape, sportswriters were noble, honorable, and admirable- not blood-sucking, cliche-weilding leeches like they are today.
But that's all changed. Sportswriters alternate between pandering to major stars (like Stephen A. did with Iverson on his recent interview, or pretty much everyone does to any major star) and hammering the ones who can't fight back (i.e. stars on bad teams, Hispanics, and QBs). There's no middle ground; and there's certainly no objectivity. I've heard tale that some writers are actually justifying Terrell Owens' behavior as "T.O. being T.O.," as if they're scared that the big bully Owens will read their writing and make fun of them in an interview. Worse yet, athletes who didn't play a particular sport are analyzing that sport, and are encouraged to do so on the fact that they are "sports personalities." Again, this appeal-to-improper-authority-style of sports journalism has become pervasive to the point at which John Kruk is writing articles for ESPN. Also, the major writers are now screaming their opinions at each other on the big screen (Kornheiser, Wilbon, Paige, Ryan, Mariotti, Lupica and the like), leading to scenarios where we remember one witticism over thirty minutes of semi-intelligent discourse.
The death of any profession is the erosion of talent in or use for that profession. And this is clearly becoming the case with sports writing and sports journalism. I don't even read the newspaper anymore because of it... and I don't even notice the turnover of good local journalists, such is when Pat Forde left the C-J to write for ESPN. This is the problem that faces the industry; this will be the straw that stirs the drink of desolation.
So maybe I'm being dramatic, but the majority of my point is still intact: sports journalism is quickly losing its luster for me. I liked reading and writing sports articles, and I still do. And it's my fault for tuning in. But I'm not going to pretend that sportswriting is legitimate anymore, not until we stop talking smack and starting changing back... to good journalism, that is.
What am I talking about?
This blog is a farce, a tease, a futile attempt for me to enter the sensationalized world of sportswriting. I often joke about "creating a second career for myself if economics doesn't work out." What a joke.
You only have to sit and watch about thirty seconds of "Cold Pizza," "Quite Frankly," or "Around the Horn" to recognize that an entire profession is basically dying. Gone are the days where a player would get angry by reading something unkind (but possibly true) about himself in the newspaper. No, if a player wants to get served, he only has to turn on his TV, where he can get served 24 hours a day by a host of journalists, former athletes, and announcers, all of whom have their own take on a player.
I watched a little of "First and 10" this morning, and much to my chagrin, John Kruk had found his way on the screen to analyze football. He made some general points that could have been done by 1) robots, 2) 12-year olds, 3) anyone who had been to a fantasy football website in the last four years, 4) the band Simple Plan, and, well, you get the point. After Kruk made some ludicrous claim knocking the Saints, Skip Bayless (the calming force, the voice of reason) couldn't help but take a swipe at Kruk, which set off some testosterone-laden yelling match.
Last night, while watching Sportscenter, I saw Sean Salisbury take a stab at talking baseball with Peter Gammons, which was roughly equivalent to me talking economics with Milton Friedman. And I'm going to grad school in econ... Salisbury hasn't ever done anything baseball-related.
It's difficult to make something legitmate. It really is, and for some time, sportswriting was legitimate. When greats such as Dick Schaap ruled the landscape, sportswriters were noble, honorable, and admirable- not blood-sucking, cliche-weilding leeches like they are today.
But that's all changed. Sportswriters alternate between pandering to major stars (like Stephen A. did with Iverson on his recent interview, or pretty much everyone does to any major star) and hammering the ones who can't fight back (i.e. stars on bad teams, Hispanics, and QBs). There's no middle ground; and there's certainly no objectivity. I've heard tale that some writers are actually justifying Terrell Owens' behavior as "T.O. being T.O.," as if they're scared that the big bully Owens will read their writing and make fun of them in an interview. Worse yet, athletes who didn't play a particular sport are analyzing that sport, and are encouraged to do so on the fact that they are "sports personalities." Again, this appeal-to-improper-authority-style of sports journalism has become pervasive to the point at which John Kruk is writing articles for ESPN. Also, the major writers are now screaming their opinions at each other on the big screen (Kornheiser, Wilbon, Paige, Ryan, Mariotti, Lupica and the like), leading to scenarios where we remember one witticism over thirty minutes of semi-intelligent discourse.
The death of any profession is the erosion of talent in or use for that profession. And this is clearly becoming the case with sports writing and sports journalism. I don't even read the newspaper anymore because of it... and I don't even notice the turnover of good local journalists, such is when Pat Forde left the C-J to write for ESPN. This is the problem that faces the industry; this will be the straw that stirs the drink of desolation.
So maybe I'm being dramatic, but the majority of my point is still intact: sports journalism is quickly losing its luster for me. I liked reading and writing sports articles, and I still do. And it's my fault for tuning in. But I'm not going to pretend that sportswriting is legitimate anymore, not until we stop talking smack and starting changing back... to good journalism, that is.
posted by mike at 11:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home