PDA

View Full Version : Sports Writers Are Not Real Reporters



Person
07-14-2008, 11:42 AM
And this Brett Favre situation proves it. This is a story of Brett Favre and Ted Thompson, and there are some obvious questions that arenít being asked. If memory serves, the annual retirement watch didnít begin until Ted Thompson took over as GM. Is that a coincidence, or is something there? What has caused Brett Favre, who has always been a team-first kind of player to shift so radically in stance to get to the point where last year he requested a trade, or to now request his release from the organization? Where are the hard questions? Of course current Packers players and officials will be reluctant to comment on the situation, and this is for obvious reasons, but as in other fields of reporting, the anonymous source will be more willing to speak frankly- but I donít see any attempt to gain this perspective. Where the heck are the anonymous sources? Also, what about people whoíve had experience working with both Brett Favre and Ted Thompson. I think Mike Holmgren and Matt Hassleback might have insight into the situationÖwhat was their experience with Ted Thompson? And for that matter, the entire Seahawks organization could provide context for the situation. As players, how did they like working under Ted Thompson? Also, Mike ShermanÖwhat did he see in his year working under Ted Thompson? What was the Favre / Thompson relationship like in that first year? How about Ahman Green? What about Bubba Franks? Or retired players like William Henderson? Thereís a huge well of info that isnít being tapped. And I ask again, where the Hell are the anonymous sources? And what was up with Steve Young at the 2007 draft? Do you remember how he blasted Ted Thompson after the draft of Justin Harrell? He was so emotionally involved that he nearly went to tears, and after he had his say, he left and didnít come back for the rest of the day. What was up with that? He obviously has information that he isnít sharing. And how much does the drafting of Aaron Rodgers play into this? And what was up with the Favre comment about tutoring Rodgers? Was he directly asked to do that? At the time, I thought he was saying that he was there to win games and if he ever got to the point that his skills diminished enough that his primary role was to become that of a tutor, well then he would be finished. But now Iím not so sure. Why is his relationship with Rodgers so strained? Why wasnít his relationship with other back-ups antagonistic, but with Rodgers it is? And what about the John Jones situation? That was never adequately explained. Is that somehow related to this mess? Were loyalties already divided at that point? And finally, what was said at that infamous meeting in Mississippi in March? Was something said that rubbed Favre wrong and led him to change his mind?
There are huge holes in this story, that wouldn't be tolerated in other media fields, and I think it's about time that changes.

hughest4
07-14-2008, 03:59 PM
Like you said, there are a ton of questions that have been left unanswered and to be honest i think most of them will stay that way. Sports writers are reporters in a way, but at the same time i feel like sometimes they might not go as in depth as they could

packersandsox
07-15-2008, 08:08 AM
Are you kidding me?

I work in the media, and I want to clear something up. There are a lot of assumptions in your post. I'll try and address a few....

First of all, if there are any problems with reporters asking or not asking question, the regular reporters at the White House are the ones that are not doing their jobs...not sports reporters.

A lot of reporters start out in sports, so to say they are not "real" is ridiculous.

Your also assuming there would possibly be annonymous sources. I'm just going to guess that Ted Thompson runs a pretty tight ship, and in a town like Green Bay any mole is going to be routed out pretty quickly.

Secondly, why in the hell would Holmgren or Hasselback ever respond to this? They are part of another team - the Seahawks. They would probably respond (and i would guess probably have already) with a "no comment"

And finally, this is just sports. Yes I love it. Yeah, I'm curious. It pains me to think about the Packers without Favre. But at the same time, we have a failing economy, two war fronts, banks failing, a heated election, and the gross use of Fear to distract us all. Do you think they best and brightest reporters should be stuck covering the sports beat in Green Bay?

Person
07-15-2008, 12:21 PM
It wasn't my intention to inention to insult anyone and I'm sorry if I did- I was just trying to be provacative. And I'm not going to argue with you about the relative importance of sports vs. other coverage; it's a strawman argument and I think if you reflect on it for a moment, you'll see that too.
But doesn't it strike anyone as odd that with all the sports coverage of this story, that all the sports outlets were scooped by Greta Vansusteren? What's up with that?
And outside of 1919 Whitesox and the recent Game of Shadows, where have there been any real stories by sports writers? I'm sure there are plenty of others, but the point is, it's few and far between.

And finally, one thing about your post really sticks out: at the end you suggest that the best and brightest reporters shouldn't be stuck covering sports...well if that's true and if that's the way it works, then doesn't that sort of prove my point?

ugottabjoshinme
07-15-2008, 12:56 PM
It wasn't my intention to inention to insult anyone and I'm sorry if I did- I was just trying to be provacative. And I'm not going to argue with you about the relative importance of sports vs. other coverage; it's a strawman argument and I think if you reflect on it for a moment, you'll see that too.
But doesn't it strike anyone as odd that with all the sports coverage of this story, that all the sports outlets were scooped by Greta Vansusteren? What's up with that?
And outside of 1919 Whitesox and the recent Game of Shadows, where have there been any real stories by sports writers? I'm sure there are plenty of others, but the point is, it's few and far between.

And finally, one thing about your post really sticks out: at the end you suggest that the best and brightest reporters shouldn't be stuck covering sports...well if that's true and if that's the way it works, then doesn't that sort of prove my point?

I would say that that has absolutely nothing to do with your point. Just because the best reporters aren't covering sports (which they should not be) does not mean that the people covering sports aren't real reporters. Thats like saying minor league baseball players aren't baseball players because they are not the best baseball players.

Also, no story in any media outlet (sports, politics, etc.) does not have holes in it. There are two sides to any story and the story that comes out has a media bias depending on who they work for. Sports writers are just as much reporters as any other news writers. The only way that this would not be the case is if we knew every single detail about every single subject except sports. Which we don't. So by your logic, no writers are actual reporters.

Person
07-15-2008, 01:49 PM
So by your logic, no writers are actual reporters.

No. That's not logic, that's reductio ad absurdum. Now I recognize that I've taken an unpopular opinion here, but my point is that there seems to be a pervasive "loose lips sink ships" mentality among the pool and a reluctance to burn bridges. Perhaps that's the nature of sports writing because the writers have a regular need to go back to the same sources for comment. But when a story comes along that requires investigative reporting, well then it's rediculous to expect a comprimised writer to cover the story.

ugottabjoshinme
07-15-2008, 01:56 PM
No. That's not logic, that's reductio ad absurdum. Now I recognize that I've taken an unpopular opinion here, but my point is that there seems to be a pervasive "loose lips sink ships" mentality among the pool and a reluctance to burn bridges. Perhaps that's the nature of sports writing because the writers have a regular need to go back to the same sources for comment. But when a story comes along that requires investigative reporting, well then it's rediculous to expect a comprimised writer to cover the story.

I agree with that, I just dont think you can single out sports reporting with your opinion

ugottabjoshinme
07-15-2008, 01:58 PM
No. That's not logic, that's reductio ad absurdum. Now I recognize that I've taken an unpopular opinion here, but my point is that there seems to be a pervasive "loose lips sink ships" mentality among the pool and a reluctance to burn bridges. Perhaps that's the nature of sports writing because the writers have a regular need to go back to the same sources for comment. But when a story comes along that requires investigative reporting, well then it's rediculous to expect a comprimised writer to cover the story.

Touche