The Sports Media Thread

[infrared41]

6 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

So what do you think? As consumers or readers, do you want verbatim quotes? Or do you not mind cleaning them up a little to make them read properly?

 

Sometimes you have no choice but to clean them up. Back in 1995, I was covering the Syracuse Chiefs. One night a Latin American player on the Richmond Braves had a helluva game. He hit a couple HRs and had 6 or 7 RBI. His postgame interview was the most hilarious interview I've ever been a part of. Long story short, he had been taught that "f***ing the ball" was english for just about any positive result. So...his postgame quotes consisted of gems like "I got a good pitch and I f***ed that ball right out of the park." "That pitcher got to f*** me with a breaking ball but I know if he throw it again I would f*** that pitch. He throw it again and I said you can't f*** me again and I f***ed that ball hard." And so on... 

 

Anyway, I think cleaned up quotes make for a better read. 

[Cosmic]

I would probably take out filler words, but I'd lean heavily towards verbatim.  Wouldn't it be strange to see/hear Carlos Gomez interviewed on TV/radio in ESL speak, and then read the same quote in the paper the next day in textbook English?  I don't think there's any shame for an international player to speak in poor English.  My Spanish is no bueno.  If you're from the inner-city and you speak in a particular way, there's a history there that's part of who you are.  It seems like whitewashing to me to pretend that everyone speaks perfectly.  Every case would have to be evaluated individually, I guess, but I feel like a journalist's job is to relate what happened, not fabricate something based on the themes of the interview.  If you're going to put what Carlos Gomez actually said into "proper" English, how can you even call it a quote?  Just paraphrase without quotes.

 

I wouldn't try to make it into a "Gotcha!" thing, though.  I think it's perfectly fine to ask somebody to clarify what they meant, and print the quote the way they meant it.  I'd be very wary of assuming, though.  The one reporter said he put frustrated when a player combined "frustrated" and "flustered" into "flustrated".  It reminds me of a person not knowing somebody's name, but pretending that they do, in order to avoid awkwardly admitting that they didn't know before.  Maybe the player meant "flustrated".  It has a nice ring to it.  He never said "frustrated", though.  Either ask him what he meant, or print "flustrated".

[smzimbabwe]

On a side note, I hate TV networks that advertise a big event (i.e. Super Bowl, etc.) in a way that makes it seem as if you wouldn't be watching it if it wasn't on their network.

[Sodboy13]

14 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I like Bill Barnwell very much but I can't tell you what DVOA means. I'm sure it's important. 

 

That's two in each hole, right?

[infrared41]

On 5/26/2016 at 0:30 AM, Sodboy13 said:

 

That's two in each hole, right?

 

Not "insert coins in slot" but not bad. 

[Still MIGHTY]

56 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

I would probably take out filler words, but I'd lean heavily towards verbatim.  Wouldn't it be strange to see/hear Carlos Gomez interviewed on TV/radio in ESL speak, and then read the same quote in the paper the next day in textbook English?  I don't think there's any shame for an international player to speak in poor English.  My Spanish is no bueno.  If you're from the inner-city and you speak in a particular way, there's a history there that's part of who you are.  It seems like whitewashing to me to pretend that everyone speaks perfectly.  Every case would have to be evaluated individually, I guess, but I feel like a journalist's job is to relate what happened, not fabricate something based on the themes of the interview.  If you're going to put what Carlos Gomez actually said into "proper" English, how can you even call it a quote?  Just paraphrase without quotes.

 

I think the bolded is something I do think about.

 

If I'm at any of these high school games and I go to interview a coach or player and I'm the only media there, then I feel a little bit better about cleaning things up. No one's really going to check me on it, and it's just cleaning up. I'm not changing the intention at all. But if I'm interviewing someone and there's another reporter there or one of our video guys are there and I know the quote would be offered in other places or could be seen spoken, then I stick more to straight verbatim than I would normally.

 

A bit of a dangerous double standard, I know. But especially when it's high school kids and we're told to avoid pointing out their mistakes unless it's important, I try to help them out. (Although when they give me bad quotes because high school kids don't know how to talk to us, it is what it is. I have to use what I have.)

 

So basically, I think in a world where most college/pro sports media is widely available in video form immediately on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or elsewhere, then it's at the reporter's best interest to quote verbatim.

[Cosmic]

6 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

A bit of a dangerous double standard, I know. But especially when it's high school kids and we're told to avoid pointing out their mistakes unless it's important, I try to help them out. (Although when they give me bad quotes because high school kids don't know how to talk to us, it is what it is. I have to use what I have.)

I would actually edit high school kids a little bit more, as well.  They're kids.  They're not getting paid millions of dollars to give an interview.  They're more likely to care and have their families care about what's in the paper.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Woah - check out Bill Simmons on NBA on TNT!

 

I can't tell if everyone hates him. I assume they do.

[Cujo]

REPORT: Chris Berman retiring/leaving ESPN after 2016

 

(If true) Rejoice.

[dfwabel]

5 minutes ago, Cujo said:

REPORT: Chris Berman leaving ESPN after 2016

 

(If true) Rejoice.

The SI Media podcast went in depth regarding his future even with basically just doing NFL.

 

Personally, I'm a bit sad Heather Cox is leaving ESPN, most likely for NBC's Thursday night NFL thus I won't see her on TV as often.

[infrared41]

4 hours ago, Cujo said:

REPORT: Chris Berman retiring/leaving ESPN after 2016

 

(If true) Rejoice.

 

Odds are I'm one of the very few around here who likes Chris Berman. It's probably a generational thing. I'm old enough remember when he was really, really good.

 

In it's heyday, NFL Prime Time was the best part of the NFL weekend. 

 

 

[Cujo]

Berman's stuff from the early days of NFL Primetime was different/funny/tolerable. Most people enjoyed it, which is why he's stuck around as long as he has. But sometime around the turn of the century, his schtick got stale, and to this day still rides the coattails of his early success. And for those Home Run Derbys calls... ??

 

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Cujo

[dfwabel]

1 minute ago, Cujo said:

Berman's stuff from the early days of NFL Primetime was different/funny/tolerable. But sometime around the turn of the century, his schtick got stale. And those Home Run Derbys calls... ??

He failed to stay relevant. Every nickname alluded to his past and not any younger viewer born after 1978-82. He is not current and he is a shill for the covered sport the NFL Draft was embarrassing in his lack of serious questions.

 

Plus, a joke series based on puns rarely works after 12 months, less 40 years.

 

 

[2001mark]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

Berman's stuff from the early days of NFL Primetime was different/funny/tolerable. Most people enjoyed it, which is why he's stuck around as long as he has. But sometime around the turn of the century, his schtick got stale, and to this day still rides the coattails of his early success. And for those Home Run Derbys calls... ??

 

What is Hate Watching for $600.

 

It's a shame that his Thursday-Friday early tee time US Open calls have gone so unnoticed.  Good lord, usually when I say I'll mute the tv, it's in jest as a gag.  Berman + golf = no.

The only thing he was decent at was NFL Primetime, because frankly, it was 80% highlights & only 20% colour.  NBC killed that show, & NFL Gameday remained unbearable.  

That's right Boom {throws up in mouth}

[dfwabel]

FWIW, NYT's Sandomir talked to Berman's agent.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichSandomir?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

And Jason McIntyre of The Big Lead was the first to report and while under Gannett/USAToday control, McIntyre has used The Big Lead to carry the FS1 storylines and break any ESPN "issues".

 

McIntyre reportedly got a FS1 gig with Cowherd and Whitlock.

 

 

[CS85]

7 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Odds are I'm one of the very few around here who likes Chris Berman. It's probably a generational thing. I'm old enough remember when he was really, really good.

 

In it's heyday, NFL Prime Time was the best part of the NFL weekend. 

 

 

 

 

I'm with you.  Berman was one of the first personalities I saw when getting into football 20 years ago or so, and Sundays flipping between ESPN and Fox's pregames used to be such an amazing 1-2 of entertainment, hype, and analysis.  Whether people like him or not, he's synonymous with the NFL on television, and ESPN won't be the same without him in many respects.

[Sport]

In those days NFL Primetime was great because they gave so much time to each highlight. Now it's like 30 seconds at most and they don't even show you all of the games before they send it back to Ditka and Keyshawn. I think, it's been years since I watched an NFL show. I only watch the games now and my life is better for it. 

 

I keep hearing about how sportscenter and shows like it are in the toilet because people already know what happened in the games due to the internet and that's why they need to have more discussion/debate and more analysis and I don't agree at all. People have already seen all the games? I don't know if that's true. I don't go out of my way to find highlights from out of market games online.  

 

How do you fix sportscenter? I'd love to see someone try this - Do the exact opposite of what you're doing now. Lean into the overknowledged sports fan and hit em with the highlights again. Do more, longer highlights, use personalities to read them. The last sportscenter I watched they had the most bland, non-talented dork running the show and I thought "this is what passes for SportsCenter anchors these days?". Show a 2 minute highlight of the Braves playing the Reds, but goof on how bad they are. Fire Stephen A Smith yesterday. Knock it off with hot takes, don't #embracedebate. If a game happened that day and it's MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA, and yes MLS/EPL/important soccer then show the damn highlights. Make it the one stop shop for everything, a true sports center. Be the best highlight show anywhere, better than anyone on the internet is doing and people will go out of their way to watch it. People are already cutting the chord left and right and their subscriber numbers are plummeting, which could be wholly unrelated to how bad sportscenter's gotten, but if that's the case you might as well give that a try while you're sinking because your debate bull that everybody hates clearly isn't working and that's why Fox's gathering of the juggalos (Cowherd, Whitlock, Bayless) is so disappointing. No, don't do exactly what everyone hates about Espen. Do the opposite!

 

Did sportscenter work in the 90's because we weren't informed yet or did it work in the 90's because they were best at showing sports highlights? I think it's more of the latter than the former. 

 

 

 

 

[JayMac]

I loved Berman in the 90s when I was a young teenager as I loved ESPN. Somewhere along the way, he became tired and ESPN did the same. I am not a fan of him now but I will give him his due, he is ESPN.

[infrared41]

53 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Did sportscenter work in the 90's because we weren't informed yet or did it work in the 90's because they were best at showing sports highlights? I think it's more of the latter than the former. 

 

It was definitely the latter. Any game you watched back then reported scores from other games. It's not like this is a recent development. The reason we tuned in was to see how Dan and Keith (or whomever) did the highlights. We already knew the results. 

[Sport]

47 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

It was definitely the latter. Any game you watched back then reported scores from other games. It's not like this is a recent development. The reason we tuned in was to see how Dan and Keith (or whomever) did the highlights. We already knew the results. 

Good point. I tuned in knowing the scores for the most part, but I wanted to see how they were reached. I also stuck around and watched the repeat of the same show right after it because it was entertainment more than it was news. I had an encyclopedic knowledge of 1990's MLB, NBA, and yes NHL (because they actually covered hockey then) rosters and I don't anymore outside of a team's 1 or 2 star players. Sad!