Real Sports: Frank Deford, left, and correspondentsPhoto: HBO
It did that for me, a former sports-section reporter and editor, confirming some conclusions I had come to years ago.
Here was the description of Deford’s piece from the Real Sports Web site:
As newspapers across the country struggle to maintain circulation and clout in the volatile world of digital media, sports editors at virtually every daily newspaper have made difficult decisions to reduce staff and pages. The result has been a mass exodus of top writers from some of America's most prestigious sports sections, which has reshaped the reporting and consumption of sports news and opinion. In this REAL SPORTS/Sports Illustrated report, correspondent Frank Deford probes the decline of this great tradition and considers the prospects for newspaper sports sections in the new media environment.
Let’s start with a word about Deford of Sports Illustrated. He is an old school, curmudgeon-like sports guy who probably knows as much about sports sections as anybody. Deford is legendary, still writing strong and brings credibility to the issue. Any contemporary sportswriter worth his/her salt today should know Deford’s legacy in newspaper, magazine and broadcast sports – just like the way newbie LeBron James appreciates what it meant to be Earl "The Pearl" Monroe in the 1960s and 70s.
I wrote about my background and orientation to sports in my introductory post for WorldSport
sBlogs on August 25. I am no 25-year veteran of the sports department. Haven’t spent a career writing columns or covering Super Bowls. Just spent a half-dozen years in my first job out of college in the sports department of my hometown newspaper in Baltimore (some of the best times of my life amid a career in news and communications).
But there is one thing I do know and that is I love sports and sports coverage in the newspaper. Like Tony Soprano, I shuffle out to my driveway expectantly each morning to get the paper. And yes, I read the sports section first -- always. Simply, I am sucker for a sports section.
Deford’s Real Sports piece sought to bring some relevancy to what is fairly obvious – that newspaper sports sections like the print newspaper itself is being hit hard by the digital age. Some recent reports, such as from the Newspaper Association of America, say subscriber churn is waning and that consumers still view newspapers as a highly valued product.
Whatever the situation, newspapers remain a beleaguered commodity that in many cases is threatening to go the way of the dinosaur. My question for newspaper sports sections is what can you do better to keep diehards like me buying you?
Without oversimplifying, what editors have to understand in the digital age is that the average 20-25 year old isn’t buying – much less subscribing – to the paper for sports coverage or anything else. Yet I am. But there is a twist. I am going online, too, for my sports information fix (Yahoo! Sports is the home page on my browser). I go online heavy like the 20-25 year olds. But unlike them, I still like a newspaper coming to the house and pay for it.
My question is whether the newspaper sports section delivery model is being directed to the appropriate demographic – me. I suspect not because the paper typically isn’t giving me what I want from sports.
Here is what I want: More news and information, less opinion, "readable" agate type. There is probably more, but those three really give me pause. The challenge for print is to really break the mold from the past and deliver these for my $40.00 or so a month.
Everyone knows that when compared to digital, newspaper news is quickly outdated. Nonetheless, I want more. I want specifics. I want to know who tweaked a hammy before the big game, who is about to break a personal record or who had to leave the dugout because his wife was about to have the baby. Just factual, news and information spread throughout the section. I want the minutia.
What I want less of is to read the opinions of columnists. It takes up too much space – like the antiquated newspaper takeout. Perspective is fine, but, in my view, opinion is not perspective. Besides, in the digital age, I can find opinion in droves on the Internet at any number of Web sites, including at WorldSportsBlogs.
Here is a case in point: I read a recent newspaper sports column about the entertainment value of flamboyant Bengals’ wide receiver Chad Ochocinco. Somehow, this led to Ochocinco being labeled a "knucklehead." Really? That’s not how I feel about the guy. In fact, why would anyone call Ochocinco that? He’s a brilliant football player, superb marketer and seemingly pleasant young man. I’ve never read about drug arrests, gang ties, club-hopping or even womanizing with Ochocinco. When I watch his TV interviews, he is polite and respectful. Frankly, all I care about with Ochocinco is how the Ravens are going to stop him on Sunday. I don’t care that a columnist has a problem with his perceived bad-boy image.
Labeling an athlete making millions of dollars on and off the field a knucklehead is old-time, outdated sports journalism. To get to his level, the guy must be doing something right. Sports venues are littered with the ghosts of superbly talented athletes never to make big, but seems to me Ochocinco has persevered. So, I don’t care what makes Ochocinco tick or what anybody thinks about him. It is just not important to my life. I just want to see the game.
This model of sports journalism – of the "respected," all-knowing columnist gloating over a personality, occurrence, issue, game – simply is gone. Newspapers need to understand this and redistribute that coveted news hole. In today’s multichannel and digital environment, everybody has an outlet for an opinion if they have time to express it. You don’t need a newspaper columnist to tell you what you should be thinking. I can find opinion in blogs -- if I choose to read them. But for my daily paper, just give me the straight news and information and let me make my own decisions.
The last thing is the agate type, such as standings, boxscores, transactions, scoreboards, etc. As a pure sports guy, this is my favorite part of the sports section. I read agate because if a guy went two-for-four with a homerun and three RBIs, that’s what he did that day. But I will never see 25 years old again with 20-20 vision. In other words, in today’s sports pages, most agate type is too small. Why should I have to find a magnifying glass to read a boxscore? Hey, I am figuring that if you drop more opinion columns you could make agate type readable.
Finally, here is another thought, on coverage of sports in the sports section. From Baltimore and Washington, I follow the Ravens and Orioles religiously in the Baltimore Sun and the Redskins and Nationals just as hard in the Washington Post. But I also want specific, ongoing news and information about "everything else" in my sphere: Wizards, Michael Phelps and swimming, track and field, horse racing, auto racing, preps, amateurs, WNBA. Even ice hockey and lacrosse.
Sometimes newspaper guys give you want they think you want. For instance, how can you run the result of Game 4 in the WNBA championship series without running the boxscore? Granted, there’s more interest in the boxscores for the baseball playoffs.
But ask yourself, why do I as a reader care about women’s professional basketball. Sure, I prefer the NBA, too, but for the WNBA it is because I have kids, girls. I have a daughter who plays in college. So, I have an interest. In fact, I would venture to guess that most of a newspaper’s subscribers are like me – dads with kids.
Running that WNBA boxscore might be enough to keep me from dropping the paper.
Bottom line for me as a sports-section consumer is that newspapers can’t continue to present sports news the same way they did years and years ago. It is a different time today. Everyone has more choices.
Frank Deford’s "Paper Cuts" piece that aired Sept. 15 on HBO on Bryant Gumbel’s "Real Sports" program should give vendors of sports journalism plenty to chew over.
It did that for me, a former sports-section reporter and editor, confirming some conclusions I had come to years ago.
Here was the description of Deford’s piece from the Real Sports Web site:
As newspapers across the country struggle to maintain circulation and clout in the volatile world of digital media, sports editors at virtually every daily newspaper have made difficult decisions to reduce staff and pages. The result has been a mass exodus of top writers from some of America's most prestigious sports sections, which has reshaped the reporting and consumption of sports news and opinion. In this REAL SPORTS/Sports Illustrated report, correspondent Frank Deford probes the decline of this great tradition and considers the prospects for newspaper sports sections in the new media environment.
Let’s start with a word about Deford of Sports Illustrated. He is an old school, curmudgeon-like sports guy who probably knows as much about sports sections as anybody. Deford is legendary, still writing strong and brings credibility to the issue. Any contemporary sportswriter worth his/her salt today should know Deford’s legacy in newspaper, magazine and broadcast sports – just like the way newbie LeBron James appreciates what it meant to be Earl "The Pearl" Monroe in the 1960s and 70s.
I wrote about my background and orientation to sports in my introductory post for WorldSport
sBlogs on August 25. I am no 25-year veteran of the sports department. Haven’t spent a career writing columns or covering Super Bowls. Just spent a half-dozen years in my first job out of college in the sports department of my hometown newspaper in Baltimore (some of the best times of my life amid a career in news and communications).But there is one thing I do know and that is I love sports and sports coverage in the newspaper. Like Tony Soprano, I shuffle out to my driveway expectantly each morning to get the paper. And yes, I read the sports section first -- always. Simply, I am sucker for a sports section.
Deford’s Real Sports piece sought to bring some relevancy to what is fairly obvious – that newspaper sports sections like the print newspaper itself is being hit hard by the digital age. Some recent reports, such as from the Newspaper Association of America, say subscriber churn is waning and that consumers still view newspapers as a highly valued product.
Whatever the situation, newspapers remain a beleaguered commodity that in many cases is threatening to go the way of the dinosaur. My question for newspaper sports sections is what can you do better to keep diehards like me buying you?
Without oversimplifying, what editors have to understand in the digital age is that the average 20-25 year old isn’t buying – much less subscribing – to the paper for sports coverage or anything else. Yet I am. But there is a twist. I am going online, too, for my sports information fix (Yahoo! Sports is the home page on my browser). I go online heavy like the 20-25 year olds. But unlike them, I still like a newspaper coming to the house and pay for it.
My question is whether the newspaper sports section delivery model is being directed to the appropriate demographic – me. I suspect not because the paper typically isn’t giving me what I want from sports.
Here is what I want: More news and information, less opinion, "readable" agate type. There is probably more, but those three really give me pause. The challenge for print is to really break the mold from the past and deliver these for my $40.00 or so a month.
Everyone knows that when compared to digital, newspaper news is quickly outdated. Nonetheless, I want more. I want specifics. I want to know who tweaked a hammy before the big game, who is about to break a personal record or who had to leave the dugout because his wife was about to have the baby. Just factual, news and information spread throughout the section. I want the minutia.
What I want less of is to read the opinions of columnists. It takes up too much space – like the antiquated newspaper takeout. Perspective is fine, but, in my view, opinion is not perspective. Besides, in the digital age, I can find opinion in droves on the Internet at any number of Web sites, including at WorldSportsBlogs.
Here is a case in point: I read a recent newspaper sports column about the entertainment value of flamboyant Bengals’ wide receiver Chad Ochocinco. Somehow, this led to Ochocinco being labeled a "knucklehead." Really? That’s not how I feel about the guy. In fact, why would anyone call Ochocinco that? He’s a brilliant football player, superb marketer and seemingly pleasant young man. I’ve never read about drug arrests, gang ties, club-hopping or even womanizing with Ochocinco. When I watch his TV interviews, he is polite and respectful. Frankly, all I care about with Ochocinco is how the Ravens are going to stop him on Sunday. I don’t care that a columnist has a problem with his perceived bad-boy image.
Labeling an athlete making millions of dollars on and off the field a knucklehead is old-time, outdated sports journalism. To get to his level, the guy must be doing something right. Sports venues are littered with the ghosts of superbly talented athletes never to make big, but seems to me Ochocinco has persevered. So, I don’t care what makes Ochocinco tick or what anybody thinks about him. It is just not important to my life. I just want to see the game.
This model of sports journalism – of the "respected," all-knowing columnist gloating over a personality, occurrence, issue, game – simply is gone. Newspapers need to understand this and redistribute that coveted news hole. In today’s multichannel and digital environment, everybody has an outlet for an opinion if they have time to express it. You don’t need a newspaper columnist to tell you what you should be thinking. I can find opinion in blogs -- if I choose to read them. But for my daily paper, just give me the straight news and information and let me make my own decisions.
The last thing is the agate type, such as standings, boxscores, transactions, scoreboards, etc. As a pure sports guy, this is my favorite part of the sports section. I read agate because if a guy went two-for-four with a homerun and three RBIs, that’s what he did that day. But I will never see 25 years old again with 20-20 vision. In other words, in today’s sports pages, most agate type is too small. Why should I have to find a magnifying glass to read a boxscore? Hey, I am figuring that if you drop more opinion columns you could make agate type readable.
Finally, here is another thought, on coverage of sports in the sports section. From Baltimore and Washington, I follow the Ravens and Orioles religiously in the Baltimore Sun and the Redskins and Nationals just as hard in the Washington Post. But I also want specific, ongoing news and information about "everything else" in my sphere: Wizards, Michael Phelps and swimming, track and field, horse racing, auto racing, preps, amateurs, WNBA. Even ice hockey and lacrosse.
Sometimes newspaper guys give you want they think you want. For instance, how can you run the result of Game 4 in the WNBA championship series without running the boxscore? Granted, there’s more interest in the boxscores for the baseball playoffs.
But ask yourself, why do I as a reader care about women’s professional basketball. Sure, I prefer the NBA, too, but for the WNBA it is because I have kids, girls. I have a daughter who plays in college. So, I have an interest. In fact, I would venture to guess that most of a newspaper’s subscribers are like me – dads with kids.
Running that WNBA boxscore might be enough to keep me from dropping the paper.
Bottom line for me as a sports-section consumer is that newspapers can’t continue to present sports news the same way they did years and years ago. It is a different time today. Everyone has more choices.
