Refuting the 'negative' charge
Jerry Brewer of The Seattle Times has a column (which you can read by clicking here) about the perception that sportswriters are too negative.
There's a great gap between perception and reality on that subject, Brewer writes. To put it simply, most sportswriters aren't predisposed to highlighting the bad. We are critical thinkers who analyze the news, and in general, our tone in stories and columns is a reflection of a team's performance. We like good news, too. We like writing about winning. The players are friendlier. The stories have more personality. But when bad things happen to good athletes, we don't ignore the train wreck.
Now, my thoughts on the subject.
Some sportswriters do enjoy making fun of bad players and teams, but most would rather cover champions and others at the top of their games.
Reading Mike Littwin's brilliantly sarcastic coverage of the horrible 1979 Dodgers made me realize that a sportswriter can rise above his subject, that sometimes it's more fun to read about a team than watch it. But myself, I'd like to think I've done my best work covering winners and exploring what makes them great.
If sportswriters often appear negative, it's usually in contrast to athletes and coaches who are relentlessly positive. As athletes and coaches are supposed to be.
If the Dodgers are winning, and the clubhouse comments suggest it's time to print playoff tickets, it's the duty of reporters to point out the weaknesses that could yet derail the team. If the Dodgers are losing, and they keep insisting things will get better, it's the duty of reporters to point out the problems that won't be easily overcome.
Your thoughts? Are sportswriters (and name names) too negative?
2 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
Kevin Modesti watches sports from a new angle since his promotion from sports columnist to sports editor for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group. In his new blog, Modesti not only comments on the big sports stories of the moment-- he talks about what makes them big. Think of it as a conversation with readers about how these stories should be covered.
Of course many sportswriters are negative. But then again maybe I have that perspective having been (once in my life) a sports publicist.
At the DN (past since I don't know too many of the current crop of 'writers), Fred Eisenhammer, Eric Sondheimer (can on occasion be positive), and Frank Mazzeo (sic) immediately come to mind as having negative tendancies. While I have never met him, Steve Dilbeck comes across to this subscriber as a negative writer.
Downtown, where do I start/stop. The biggest negative 'writer is/was Steve Springer. Add most of their current crop of columnists - P.U. Simers, Plaschke, Elliott, Streeter (who stretched his collegiate resume about being an indoor NCAA tennis champion when the NCAA does not sponsor indoor tennis) - along with Chris Baker(days gone by).
And now that he has moved to the SID side of the world, former San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune Sports Editor Eric Burdick was never too positive when I was dealing with him as a Northridge publicist.
Are all sportswriters negative? Of course not. But it seems that the ones that move up to the columnist (or higher) level are more likely than not to be negative rather than positive writers.
But then again, I am trying to be fair with the ^&(*&^(&^ writers in the model of Sparky Anderson.
I don't know how I forgot the second most negative writer at the LA Times in the last 20 years. Covering the sport of kings - Bill Christine. Christine could find fault of a 70 degree sunny day at Santa Anita in March with a great race just because there was no breeze. And that he hated the betting on the sport.