David Staples has an interesting piece on the changing landscape of sports journalism this morning. Of note is the fact that the beat writer's job was transforming before the advent of the internet and user-generated content:
In response to TV, sports journalists started to spend less time writing about the exact details of the game. Instead, for good and for ill, they focused more on what the athletes and coaches had to say both before and after games. I'd guess that the majority of column inches in newspapers for several decades have been devoted to such musings. It's the rare writer who still produces a well-told, blow-by-blow narrative account of the game, or even makes the attempt.
David goes on to discuss how the wide availability of televised games, slow-motion replays and PVR's has granted increased observational power to the average viewer, powers perhaps superior to the live observer.
The most interesting part of the article may actually be the comment section where veteran Edmonton scribe John MacKinnon makes a case for the beat writer to continue to "show up" for games:
Showing up doesn't just mean being in the press box (where replays are readily available), it means showing up in the locker room after games, at practice on off-days, taking people to lunch (exceedingly rare these days), catching guys coming into the arena pre-game, pre-practice, post-game, calling contacts at home or on cell phones, texting people, whatever keeps you in contact.
It's reading body language in the locker room, catching the locker-room give-and-take, getting a sense of who's close with who, and who is disliked.
It's being there when the coach cusses out an error-prone player at practice, then talking with both of them post-practice
On and on and on.
The reporter's first responsibility is to the story, actually, to getting as close as possible to the truth under often complicated circumstances and on deadline, day after day. It is not necessarily to the consumer.
I sympathize with MacKinnon, who also discusses the compromises the beat reporter with access must sometimes make in order to maintain a relationship with the team. However, Tyler responds in the same comment section and his misgivings on the subject reflect my own.
As far as getting close goes, closeness comes with a price, which a lot of members of the Edmonton sporting press seem happy to ignore while pretending that the closeness is all important. If what getting as close to the subject as possible gets me, as a media consumer, is media guys who are compromised all over the place, pull punches in opinion pieces and stories peppered with stock quotes and obvious observations from the participants, guys who APOLOGIZE after asking an unexpected question, who cares about it?
What we have here is the contrast between journalism in principle versus journalism in practice. Everything MaKinnon says in his comment strikes me as credible...except that, as Tyler says, beat writers rarely farm anything of value from their access these days. When was the last time, for instance, any ink-stained wretch in Calgary produced a hard hitting expose of the Flames supposed locker room issues? A couple of seasons ago, the team was able to mostly conceal the fact that Alex Tanguay had requested a trade and was unhappy with his role on the club. Sure, there were trade rumors during the year - but they were often breathlessly reported, without attribution, by the likes of Pierre McGuire during in-game color commentary. So either the press club in town didn't know about any of this, or were persuaded to keep silent on the matter. Either way, their showing up for each and every game was useless to me, the consumer without access.
More recently, rumors of dressing room discontent ran rampant throughout town. We still have no real idea of the true culprit or the meat of the issue(s). Was Phaneuf roundly hated? Was it Jokinen? Was it conflict that sparked the mid-season rebuild? Sutter and King hinted obtusely at such things during their year-end presser, but there's never been any real explication of the matter. So, again, either the beat guys in town have no idea (and that's very probable. To Sutter, press relations and mushroom farming are basically the same thing) or they "weren't allowed" to share the info. Whatever the case, the truth stays buried and what we're left with is stock quotes, press releases and innuendo.
There's probably still some value to having access - a connected journo can ask a GM or coach if trade rumor X or Y is in any way true or credible for instance (although that's probably fruitless in CGY as well for the reason parenthetically stated above). A sit down interview with a player or prospect can yield worthwhile information, depending on what questions are being asked too.
Beyond those functions, however, I will remain dubious of the value of "showing up and getting close to the story". If there's insider narratives to be had from observing the culture of the dressing and such, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to skip the fish wraps.
