Comments on: Is “Rooting For The Story” The Only Way To Go?

By: mike b

mike b — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:43:08 +0000

Silverman’s repeating what others before him have said. It sounds good, but it’s a load of hooey. Else, we wouldn’t see columnists and reporters — reporters! — getting so angry about everything. Try reading a Shaughnessy column at any point in the past 10 years and find where he demonstrates any sense of proportion or balance. It’s a series of propaganda and out-and-out attacks. Is Curt Schilling really the devil incarnate? All he did was pitch his brains out. Does any of the rest of it matter?

Granted, the CHB is the worst of the group, of course, but most of the rest aren’t far behind.

Come on guys, this is sports. It’s not real life. Give it — and us — a break.

By: JT

JT — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:23:13 +0000

Reiss, cited almost universally as the top Pats guy in town, emobdies what I like in a reporter. Fact based reporting strung together with analysis. Seldom judgemental either way. A throwback to when reporters were just that and not mini media moguls. Most TV/Radio stuff is primarily entertainment -and while I willingly consume in bunches, I dont hold that to the same standards.

By: Char

Char — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:04:48 +0000

It’s all too true that when a writer says he’s rooting for “the best story,” it too often means the “easiest” story. If Pedro Martinez is making outrageous comments or Manny Ramirez is acting the fool, that’s easy. If you have to dig for, as Lance says, the fascinating story of the third-string tight end, that can be difficult. But as a fan, that’s often the kind of story that stays with me.

Easier to snark about Manny.

By: Michael Gee

Michael Gee — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:52:05 +0000

Bruce, to me, objectivity only means you’re aware of both sides of the story-namely, the cosmic fact that for every fan who’s happy after a game, there’s one that’s sad.
If sportswriters seem to prefer writing about losing (they don’t), it can be because as that great sportswriter Leo Tolstoy observed, “Happy teams are all alike. Unhappy teams are each unhappy in their own way.”
Does the need for self-promotion sometimes color media reports on sports? Sadly, yes and it’s getting worse due to economic pressures. THAT to me is the worst aspect of the business these days.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:40:31 +0000

I don't think I want more "rooterish sportswriting" Michael. I just get a little tired of the constant references to being objective, as if its a higher calling, or something. It also seems to me that some of the writers in town want to show so badly that they aren't rooting for the local team that they actually come off as rooting against them, which isn't objective, either.

By: Angry Old Bastard

Angry Old Bastard — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:36:54 +0000

To tell you the truth I don’t care if they root for the story or root for the team….I just DON’T want them to MAKE UP STORIES (John Tomase) or constantly play the contrarian to make IT SEEM LIKE THEY HAVE A STORY (Felger)…..Then you have the guys who THINK THEY ARE THE STORY (Shank,Borges)

By: Lance

Lance — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:28:15 +0000

Unfortunately controversy sells. For the lazy writer having turmoil is a blessing – it keeps them from having to cover the 3rd string tight-end or QB who might have a fascinating story to tell. Or having to actually research an aspect about the team that affects its ability to won.

The guys like CHB, Mazz and Borgey clearly don’t like to expend any more effort than necessary to hit their word quota so they pray for controversy.

Good writers like Reiss/Gaspar cover what’s there, easy or hard. But you know Reiss admires and understands BB and for his audience that’s great because they have the ability to explain decisions that may not appear reasonable on the surface. It’s clearly a better way for the audience but harder for the writer.

By: RedSeat

RedSeat — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:26:32 +0000

If you’re a reporter, rooting for the story is really just hoping that circumstances make your job easier. In truth, I have no problem with someone feeling that way. And for the record, I have no problem with a reporter rooting for or against a team either. I don’t care what they’re rooting for, because when I read their work, I shouldn’t know what they’re rooting for. I’m not reading the paper to learn about Michael Silverman and his buddies and how they reacted to the game. I’m reading to learn about the game, the players, etc.
I don’t care what happens in the pressbox and I don’t care what he thinks should or shouldn’t happen in the pressbox. This tired point is just another excuse for these writers to make themselves part of the story.

By: Michael Gee

Michael Gee — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:04:14 +0000

As a reporter or columnist, you have to be prepared for the team you cover to either win or lose. Rooting for a story is a clumsy although time-honored expression of the hope either outcome will be of interest to readers-even the one that makes them unhappy.
Judging from public reaction to some of the Boston sports catastrophes I covered,like the 2003 ALCS, it often is.
I have covered teams I rooted for as a kid and still do root for, like the Phillies and Eagles, in big games. As long as your readers are made aware of the sentiment, the columnist can be fair to both sides without difficulty. My personal feelings did not make Joe Carter’s homer in Game Six of the 1993 World Series any less dramatic or fun to write about.
The 2003 ALCS was a great story. The 2004 ALCS was an even better story, whether you worked for a paper in New York or Boston. The fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of the Lack of Good and Evil does not lessen enjoyment of sports, at least not my enjoyment.
Fans only SAY they want more rooterish sportswriting. If Boston fans spent a football season living in an SEC college town, their perspective on what they want from sports journalists would be very different.

By: MDA

MDA — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:56:10 +0000

How do you “root for a story?” It seems like only a small step to creating one where there isn’t one in the first place.