My thoughts on why newspaper basketball coverage is awful

Posted on LakersGround.net on 12/05/06.

I have always been amazed that the quality of reporting is so much better here at LG.net than in the LA papers. DancingBarry's game write-ups are so much better than the equivalent sports section write ups. The basketball knowledge demonstrated in the LA Times by Mike Bresnahan, Bill Plaschke, J.A. Adande and T. J. Simers pales in comparison to the basketball knowledge of many of the posters here. I enjoy writing posts based upon tons of research and the Times writers seem to pull their "facts" out of their hats. Yet, they are still getting published and the best posters here aren't.

Here are the biographies of Andrew and Brian Kamenetzky, who operate the Lakers blog on latimes.com:

Andrew Kamenetzky grew up in St. Louis, attended USC and has lived in L.A. ever since. He's a regular contributor to ESPN The Magazine and espn.com, including Page 2 and Page 3. He and his brother Brian co-wrote "Fishing on the Edge," the autobiography of 2003 Bassmaster Classic champion Mike Iaconelli, available May 2005, on Dellacorte Press.

I [Brian Kamenetzky] was born in St. Louis and am a die hard Cardinals fan, a fact which will become really obvious on this site as the season rolls along.

My brother Andrew (ak.mlblogs.com) and I are regular contributors to ESPN the Magazine, ESPN.com, and ESPN Page 2. Our first book, "Fishing on the Edge" co-authored with Bassmaster Classic champion will be released through Delacourte Press on May 17.

Notice the lack of any mention of basketball in their bios. And they write by far the most knowledgeable stuff on the latimes.com website.

TV and radio are famous for "dumbing down" what they present because they have so little time and present to such a broad audience. Yet, TV and radio regularly get former players and coaches to provide analysis for basketball. Rarely do they have generalists providing analysis. With print publications, there is lots of time to provide more detailed analysis and the audience tends to be more knowledgeable than the casual fan. Yet, I can't think of a single former basketball player or coach that writes regularly for a major print publication. As for the LA Times blog, it's target audience is diehard fans, and yet they chose two guys who apparently know more about bass fishing than basketball to run their blog. I don't mean to single out the LA Times. I have read articles on other papers' websites which makes the LA Times team look brilliant.

So why do print publications not have people with basketball expertise writing their basketball analysis pieces? My ideas:
1. Because there is a weak connection between readership and knowledgeable writing
LG.net would quickly turn into a ghost town without the more knowledgeable posters. There are lots of other Lakers boards and people would drift to those if there wasn't good information here. On the other hand, the LA Times doesn't have any serious competition in the LA area and people rarely make subscription decisions based upon the quality of the basketball coverage.

2. IMHO being successful with other sportswriters is more important to a sportswriter than being successful with readers
Who makes the decision to hire a sportswriter? Another sportswriter. Who decides what raises and promotions a sportswriter will get? Another sportswriter. Who helps a sportswriter find a better job? Other sportswriters. IMHO, you can write absolute nonsense, but if you know how to be buddy-buddy with other sportswriters, you are going to have a successful career.

3. A lot of sportswriting is stenography, which reduces the need for knowledge
Fans are far more interested in what Kobe or Phil has to say than what any sportswriter has to say. So being on Kobe and Phil's good side is important because that's how you get exclusive quotes. However, good analysis of the Lakers would certainly include criticizing Kobe and Phil. Therefore, writing good analysis hurts a writer's ability to get good quotes.

4. Because newspaper people confuse controversy with buzz
A related newspaper legend:

An illustrative story--legend has it that a music reviewer at the Chicago Trib, Claudia Cassidy, shredded a new music director of the Chicago Symphony (Rafael Kubelik, I believe). After a torrent of protesting letters, the publisher, Maj. McCormick, supposedly asked who this staff writer was that caught all the complaints. When told she was an arts critic, he said "Double her salary".

Saying something that gets readers fired up will get you noticed, even if what you said was stupid. This explains why T. J. Simers still has a job.

5. Because having the right resume is probably more important than actual knowledge
I don't know the background of the Lakers sportswriters, but my guess is that in order to make it pass HR to an interview, they have to had a college degree (probably in journalism) from a top tier college, preferably with outstanding grades. That's a great way to recruit writers who are white and from upper middle class or better backgrounds for whom basketball is a interest (but not a passion), but not a great way to recruit writers who know the game.

The internet has been around for a while now and my impression is that newspapers haven't woken up to the potential of recruiting writers from popular websites. The one media channel that does recruit from the media is talk radio. At the same time, basketball organizations haven't grasped that blogs and message boards have much more to say than newspapers and instead (apparently) grant press cards as if it was 30 years ago.

I know Eric Pincus and Mike Garcia are trying to establish themselves as basketball experts in the "media" and I would be very interested in hearing their thoughts on the topic.

I later added:

activeverb wrote:
It's ridiculous to suggest that the posters here are more knowledgable than newspaper reporters who cover basketball. For one thing, reporters have constant access to players, coaches, and other sources that give them greater insight that we can have.

In DancingBarry's summary, he reports that one of the big keys to the win was the switch on defense between Odom and Walton. That switch and Kwame's excellent defense on JO lead to the Indy starter's poor offensive performance, which lead to the Lakers blowing them out early. Can you find for me in any of the LA Times Lakers stories on the game (here, here and here) any discussion of how the Lakers got their big lead? I couldn't find any. Hell, Walton isn't even mentioned in any of the three articles and he lead the Lakers in +/- with +27.

activeverb wrote:
Also, I don't think people come here to revel in the genius and insights of other posters. People come here, as they come to other Internet boards, primarily because it gives them a chance to express their opinion. These boards are more about having the chance to talk as opposed to listen.

My guess is that there is a significant number of people who come here after every game to read DancingBarry's summary of the game. My guess is that there are a number of people who read mainly the posts from proven posters (emplay, Mike@LG)

activeverb wrote:
Most of the posts here, like most Internet fan boards, tend to at best regurgitate viewpoints you've seen a gazillion times before. They are often uninformed and downright silly. I read a lot of these boards and I've only come across one poster who strikes me as extremely knowledgable and a good writer. (it wasn't this board, by the way).

That's true. However, there are certain posters who consistently post insight that you won't find in MSM.

Or Forum Blue and Gold's previews are much, much better than any preview I have read in the LA Times.

activeverb wrote:
There are certainly players who act as commentators and writers. Steve Kerr comes immediately to mind.

Steve Kerr is the only one I can think of. I believe he writes only for Yahoo!, but I could be wrong.

activeverb wrote:
But for the most part, former players don't have the skill or interest to be writers. And while some players can provide commentatory, they don't have the interest or ability to be reporters.

And how do you know that? I would think there would be many former players that would love to keep their association with the game through sportswriting. That aren't that many basketball-related job opportunities for former players.

activeverb wrote:
I really doubt a sportseditor would troll these boards looking for writers and it would be a waste of their time to do so. For one thing, newspapers prize reporting skill above anything else, and there is virtually no original reporting here.

Are you saying that DancingBarry's summaries aren't original reporting? Are you saying that emplay and Mike@LG have nothing original to add here at LG?

activeverb wrote:
It's possible, albeit unlikely, that if someone wrote an Internet blog that attracted enormous attention that could lead to a staff job. But to get a job at a premier paper like the Times, you would need to show an enormous amount of talent and writing ability.

Bill Simmons wrote for a web site (Digital City Boston) before landing a writing job for ESPN's web site.