Stop Calling for a Soccer Savior in the United States

Editorial

I recently read an article that asked if Juan Agudelo was the savior of U.S. soccer. The thought behind the piece began, as it always does, listing the names of players who have not lived up to expectations but that maybe this time we had found the one.

Agudelo is an impressive player, and hopefully he continues to play well. But this style of writing needs to end. It’s lazy writing and accomplishes nothing. It is in fact the type of writing that makes the audience resent the media: building a character up in order to tear him down even harder.

The article linked to above isn’t the only one that deploys this technique, it is just the most recent I’ve seen. The names of “failures” are the typical ones mentioned: Charlie Davies, Jozy Altidore, Eddie Johnson and, of course, Freddy Adu. This isn’t to say they haven’t been disappointing, or that we shouldn’t expect more from them. But why must every young, talented American soccer player be a savior? The writers make knee-jerk reactions to good and are just as quick to criticize and devalue through times that are not as fortunate.

The first problem with the “soccer savior” story is how it originates. Far too often a potential savior is pulled from an extremely small sample size.

The majority of Juan Agudelo’s mainstream hype has come from an entire three games with the U.S National Team; his third appearance against Argentina in March was, at the time, one more game than he had played in with the New York Red Bulls total. Jozy Altidore made 43 total appearances with the Red Bulls, his first professional club team. That’s just over one full MLS season. Eddie Johnson’s most impressive run with the National Team was for his seven goals in six World Cup qualifiers. And Freddy Adu, he never played in a professional match in his life when the media firestorm anointed him the chosen one.

How can greatness be judged in a handful of games? You can learn some things about a player, but his eventual career path has so many active variables that you just can never tell that soon. The media justifies these responses by saying things like, “The American public is hungry for its own soccer superstar.” Really, it is sports writers hungry for a quick easy story. One that is framed around little information and could very well turn out wrong, but even then it would create another story.

There is a good reason the sample size is so small—the age of the players. Adu and Altidore are 21-years-old, Davies is 24 and Agudelo is only 18. Johnson is the oldest of the aforementioned players, at 27, but even so the tipping point of his success came roughly seven years ago (making Johnson a mere 20-years-old).

The point is all these players burst onto the scene at a very young age—they couldn’t even legally buy a beer. Yes, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi and Wayne Rooney became superstars at equally young ages and have become the biggest name in the sport. But that doesn’t mean that if these American players haven’t reached their peak at the same age then they are failures.

For starters the youth development programs in the country are notoriously not as strong as those overseas. Places like the IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida and MLS academies are helping to close the gap, but it’s not there yet. Therefore it takes more time for players to properly develop.

Bob Bradley, the head coach of the USMNT, has brought players like Altidore, Adu and Agudelo in for developmental purposes. In order to make the team more successful (and in doing so helping the sport become more popular in the country) Bradley’s philosophy was to make the available player pool deeper. That has meant expanding the pool to bring in younger players and bring them along at the senior level. Some, like Agudelo, flourish in the early stages. It is a process, however.



By no means is Agudelo a complete player because of his good showings in three international matches. And Adu not making a World Cup team thus far does not mean he never will. There is still a lot of time for both of these players to hit their primes and until then they will be learning the game, improving their skills and becoming good soccer players, regardless of the superstardom they achieve.

One thing that halts these players is the moves they make in the transfer seasons. With a little help from the media hype that surrounds them, the players’ profiles grow attracting them to big name teams. They move but are not ready to see the field and get buried on the bench.

Bought by Fulham in 2008, Johnson has only made 20 total appearances for the English Premier League club. He’s been loaned out three separate times. Altidore, after signing with Spanish giant Villareal, is on his third loan and Adu is on his fourth loan from parent club Benfica in Portugal.

The problem is that the players aren’t allowed to develop at the proper rates. Even the teams they are loaned to are in top flight leagues around the world and are looking to win games, not develop other team’s talents.

While these young players are training at high levels and learning what it means to be a professional, at the end of the day they have to crack the lineup and see the field. Otherwise they are no longer fit for games, their confidence gets shaken and they get rusty, dulling their once dazzling talents.

Then the media swoon over them like vultures, declaring their careers all but over.

The media is not at fault for player’s choosing the wrong team to transfer to. But for some reason the lack of proper time to develop gets lost in the coverage.

There is nothing wrong with being excited for a young player’s success. And if that player will help lead soccer to a higher status on and off the pitch then that’s great. But expectations need to be kept in
check.

The soccer savior theme needs to be put to an end. It’s beyond hyperbole now, it’s a cliché. Anytime a young player has a good run of form, even for only a handful of games, he becomes the new flavor of the week. And then when the hot streak cools and the player must work through adversity—an essential part of a player’s development—the media turns their back on him, labeling him a failure.

It’s a tired form of writing and accomplishes nothing other than squeezing as many headlines out of a buzz worthy player as possible. It makes it look like writers are not out to cover the beautiful game but rather essentially create and manipulate their own stories.

Besides, with the USMNT improving its quality of play on the pitch, MLS becoming a financially stable establishment and pure interest in the global game on the rise (i.e. sales for the FIFA video game, TV ratings for the World Cup and English Premier League matches) is a savior really needed?

Photo Credits.
Juan Agudelo and Teal Bunbury: AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill
Freddy Adu: AP Photo/Nick Wass

LeBron James: Is the Media Picture Fair?

AP Photo/Jeffrey M. Boan

Written by Chris Shore:

The nation waited desperately as the decision was being made. For weeks, one man held the attention of the American public and media creating all sorts of rumors and speculation. It came down to the final day, broadcast across the country, everyone wondering where he would go.

Then it all finally ended. LeBron James announced he would be joining the Miami Heat for the upcoming season.

The decision, broadcast live on ESPN, has provided enough drama to rival any primetime television series. LeBron was cast as both hero and villain throughout the selection process; whichever he ultimately is remains anybody’s guess. But is it right to judge LeBron James based on the media image we are given? Our perception of the man is skewed by media sensationalism, but we still form opinions based on this, unfairly judging LeBron.

As Walter Lippmann notes in his book, Public Opinion, “whatever we believe to be a true picture, we treat as if it were the environment itself.” Instead of relying on facts we imagine our own “pseudo-environments” filled with drama; the media is heavily responsible for this distortion.

The articles give us a hollow outline of the man that is LeBron James then fill it with stories of kingdoms, broken hearts, and betrayals.

“The King will bestow upon his faithful subjects a proclamation that will tear apart the kingdom of LeBron James fans,” declares an article in the Los Angeles Times.

Another L.A. Times article names LeBron “the most coveted free agent in sport’s history.”

“The LeBron James free-agency saga is nearing its fateful and surreal conclusion,” proclaims The New York Times. “The fate of five franchises will turn on a single sentence.”

Clearly we should be ready to condemn LeBron as he shakes the fate of the nation. Yet without the façade of crumbling kingdoms, fighting franchises, and heartbroken hometowns, all that is left is a man making a career choice. We cannot rely on these exaggerations to develop opinions because they do not tell us who he is.

True the situation is more complicated than a single decision. The addition of LeBron James to any roster would guarantee higher ticket sales and a more competitive team.

But rather than focus on the genuine complexity, the media simplifies, inserting instead, stereotypical images. Lippmann suggests with complex situations, “we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it.”

So LeBron is forgotten as an individual and we concentrate on LeBron as an entity. The New York Times talks about the unselfish, soft-spoken hero whose “obsession with basketball has more to do with a unique sense of team.” Meanwhile, other sources call LeBron a coward and focus on the resentment Cleveland citizens felt as they, “burned the jersey of the player they cherished for seven years.” So which of these familiar stories should we allow to prompt judgment?

Neither.

We cannot make fair assessments based on simplified or distorted stories. Instead of understanding who LeBron James is and what he is going through, we only see a caricature; a familiar imitation of a man with no originality. We cannot objectively judge an individual when we are already presented with a subjective interpretation.

While complete objectivity is impossible, the media must strive to report as objectively as possible. Such reporting would lead to not only a better informed public, but one that is more open-minded and full of individuals that form their own opinions. After all, people believe what they see, even if it is only what they see in their heads.

Nike Basketball: LeBron Rise commercial, video from YouTube.

Welcome to the Tiger Zoo

AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File

Editorial.

Ever since Tiger Woods burst onto the professional golf scene in 1996 the media has tirelessly built him up and put him on a pedestal at a height of unbelievable greatness and professionalism.

In a matter of a few weeks, they media took great pleasure in demolishing his entire image.

Woods got into a car accident November 26 and his private life has since spilled into his public appearance.

Questions were numerous. How did Woods get into the one-car accident? Where was he going at 2:30 in the morning? Why did his wife use a golf club to smash open the back window?

Woods' refusal to talk with police did nothing to help him; rather, it opened him up for speculation.

Conspiracies ran rampant. Rumors swirled. Confessions from outside sources popped up. With each new idea the media pushed further and further.

While the traditional media was the catalyst, social media expedited the entire process. There was the Twitter trending topic. Saturday Night Live did a sketch and the video went viral. Text messages with alleged mistresses were revelaed and passed along throughout the Internet. There's also a "Tiger Hunt" web-based video game.

Now, Tiger Woods is losing endorsements and has announced he is taking a leave of absence from golf.

Tiger Woods' alleged actions are not commendable. They are wrong and are not model behavior. However, it is his private life and should not be news.

It is news however. The situation rings of hypocrisy.

Tiger Woods himself and the media have presented him as the most wholesome athlete on this planet. His endorsements are so strong because of the draw of being like Tiger, living the perfect life. However, he is not the wholesome man every one made him out to be.

Also, when Woods first issued a statement he said that his wife had courageously saved him from the car and that there was no truth to any other rumor out there. That turned out to be a bold-faced lie. The media called him out on it.

However, the media, both traditional and social, are not blameless.

They sensationalized Tiger. His first year on the pro tour he was named Sports Illustrated's “Sportsman of the Year” (he was named a second time in 2000). ESPN talked him up so much that in the summer of 2007 in an audience poll Tiger Woods was named the athlete who is "most now", essentially a popularity contest amongst athletes.

The sporting world had put Tiger on a Godly level. He could do no wrong. He was pristine.

Until he did do wrong. Very wrong.

One unanswered question lead to another, speculation grew in the tabloids, and the media ran with every bit of it, destroying piece by piece the ultimate figure they helped create.

Thou giveth, thou can taketh away.

Now, the media may have pushed too far. Woods has announced his leave of absence from the sport, and the media has now lost their biggest draw to golf.

Through Tiger’s misdeeds and the media’s relentlessness, Tiger loses some endorsements (and a lot of money), his wholesome image, and must go away from the sport he loves for an indefinite period of time. The media possibly loses access to Tiger in the future and for the time being loses the biggest attraction the sport of golf has to offer currently.

These seem like fitting penalties for both parties’ involvement in what should be known as Tiger Zoo.

The (Possible) Future of Magazines

AP Photo/John Russell

In anticipation of the potential Apple tablet possibly coming out next year, the magazine industry, specifically Time Inc. and Sports Illustrated, is gearing up for what could be another huge twist in the state of journalism.

Time Inc. has released a demo of a tablet version of Sports Illustrated, the first of their magazines they will release in such a form.

The tablet-magazine will essentially be the print version on steroids. This is evident when what appears initially on the screen is a regular cover of Sports Illustrated, but when you touch it, the cover explodes into actual video.

There are countless numbers of photographs, a Google Flip type viewer of the magazine, and personal page with all your favorite teams' news and scores.

There is also a game feature where you can play along guessing what will happen with live events. Another feature is the ability to highlight certain pictures, videos, or stories, and click to share them through e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter.

All this makes the magazine more interactive for the user, but also could be better for the magazine's bottom line.

For starters the advertising would be stronger. The ads would be more vivid, with videos to go along with them, and would be targeted for the specific user. Also, Sports Illustrated does not require users to pay for web content. On the tablet, however, people would subscribe to the magazine or buy it like they would at a newsstand (once downloaded, the magazine portion of it will be available for the user off-line), thus creating more sales for the company and finding a way to boost on-line retail.

This Yahoo! Tech piece does a good job of juxtaposing the excitement of the tablet magazine with some real question that could derail its production and success.

1. The tablet is not even a definite to be released yet.

2. How many people, especially in this economy, are going to be willing to pay for the tablet in addition to any laptop and/or smart phone they have?

Still, the product in the demo looks very enticing. While there are a lot of "ifs" still in play in the production of this product, it will be an interesting step in seeing where the future of the journalism industry is headed.

If it looks this good, then I, for one, am excited.

Video from YouTube.

The King of All Athletes using Social Media

AP Photo/Ed Reinke, file

Chad Ochocinco, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, was being portrayed a certain way in the traditional media.

His touchdown celebrations, name change, and trade requests got him characterized as self-absorbed, an ego-maniac, and, occasionally, a clown.

So Ochocinco took went to social media to really show what he's all about, and it has worked beautifully.

He has accounts on Facebook and UStream, but is most famous for his use of Twitter.

Ochocinco has used these outlets to display his true personality and to really connect with his fans.

"It gives me a voice, the ability to reach people directly and for people to see who I am without the filter of the media, the critics or whomever," he said in an interview with USA Today.

Ochocinco has been able to change much of the public's perception of him from a guy who was only interested in himself to a man who is just enjoying his life and is trying to share the fun he's having with others.

He invites people to the movies or dinner with him ("If you're coming to Davids just tell the hostess you're here for lunch with Chad, its on 17th n meridian, lunch on me the blessing is on GOD" from 11/30/09) and challenges them to play him in video games ("Getting on call of duty people Estaban 85, let's play" from 11/30/09).

"I try to interact with every fan," Ochocinco says. "I try to respond to everybody."

While showing what a fun loving guy he is, the public has responded favorably.

Through his social media endeavors, he has also become an extremely marketable celebrity.

Ochocinco has come out with his own book, he became the first NFL player to get his own iPhone application, has appeared on late night talk shows, and is apparently even coming out with his own brand of condoms.

What's making him even more successful is that he is also back to being a productive player on the field (773 yards receiving and five touchdowns in 11 games) and his team is in first place in the AFC North. He’s an athlete first and foremost and his success on the field makes him a credible figure.

Chad Ochocinco is a fantastic example of how to best utilize social media and the good that it can do someone.

He connects with people across the globe, giving them a vantage point into his life that they wouldn't have had previously, and he gives back to the community. He also has used it to create a brand name for himself. Most importantly, he changed people's perceptions of him, getting everyone to see him how he wants them to, not as how the media depicts him.

Ochocinco gets it and he's letting the rest of us in on the fun he's having.

Remembering Harry the K.

AP Images/ George Widman

One of the greatest voices in baseball has left us. Harry Kalas, broadcaster for the Philadelphia Phillies, died today at the age of 73. He was also the voice of NFL Films.

Every fan has their childhood sports idol. My grandfather’s was Stan Musial, my dad’s was Bobby Orr, my mom’s was Willis Reed, and my brother’s was Michael Jordan. While I had my share of sports idols on the field (Shaquille O’Neal and Dan Marino are the guys that come to mind), Harry Kalas was the guy that resonated most with me. I don’t know if I can explain why exactly. Maybe it was his great pipes. Maybe it was his signature calls. Or maybe it was the fact that I knew Harry Kalas would always return next season as a Phillie. I remember the disappointment I had at the time when Curt Schilling was traded and the bitterness and betrayal I felt towards Scott Rolen. But no matter who came or left through the revolving door of Phillies players, Harry Kalas was always going to be broadcasting the games to me.

You build a certain kind of closeness with a broadcaster listening to and watching the same team day after day. Unlike the players, who are on the field for their own reasons, the broadcaster is there to talk to you and tell you what is going on. Harry Kalas joined me for every Phillies telecast and radio broadcast I ever watched and heard. We shared all the awful seasons the Phils had as I was growing up, and we rejoiced when they finally won it all in 2008. I’ll always remember how I spent my summers sitting on the beach in the sun, staring at the ocean, and listening to Kalas through the crackle of the airwaves telling me that Doug Glanville just stole another base.

I’ll remember the time my parents took my family to a Phillies game at the Vet and I got Kalas’ autograph. We had gone to the players exit behind the stadium after the game to try and score some autographs from the players. Players walked out, walked past the group of fans calling their names, and into the team bus. Then Harry Kalas came out and signed autographs for every single person in the crowd. He didn’t have to, but he did.

This isn’t just a Phillies thing. Or an NFL Films thing. This is about a man who connected the fan to the game. He had an unmatched enthusiasm and love for the sport. He is a legend. It will be strange when I go home for the summer and watch Phillies regional broadcasts (as opposed to national broadcasts on ESPN that don’t use the hometown announcers) without Harry Kalas.

So one last time: “Swing and a miss! Struck him out!”



Video from YouTube.

For the love of Tommy Smyth, say it ain't so!

AP Photo/Barnat Armangue

The Associated Press has published that Fox Soccer Channel has beaten out ESPN for U.S. broadcast rights of the Union of European Football Associations Champions League games. ESPN previously had the broadcast rights to the UEFA Champions League since 1994.

This has huge ramifications on the soccer coverage in America. According to the same Associated Press report, ESPN and ESPN2 are available in 98 million homes, compared to Fox Soccer Channel, which is only available in 34 million, as well as having no broadcasts in high-definition. Also, with ESPN losing the rights, they also cannot stream and replay those matches on ESPN360, which is also much more accessible than FSC. This would be like the newly created MLB Network buying the rights to broadcast the MLB playoffs and World Series.

FSC already has the U.S. broadcast rights to the English Premier League and the Italian Serie A, as well as sharing MLS matches with ESPN and other networks. Now they also get Champions League. Instead of beefing up its soccer coverage for an increasing market—just take a look at the expansion of MLS—ESPN has now lost some premier matches. In trying to improve the audience interest in the sport, fans need to see soccer played at its highest level, in order to create a higher interest, appreciation, and understanding of the intricacies of the game at the level that only teams like Manchester United or Barcelona can perform best. ESPN also has the best platform to reach out to soccer fans and non-soccer fans alike.

The Champions League, for the most part, takes place over the winter months, when MLS teams are in their offseason. Beneficial to coverage in this country, it kept some type of soccer on television year round, so that once the MLS season finished, the sport would not fade into oblivion. MLS also can’t draw the marquee players. Sure, David Beckham signed to the league, but MLS, because of roster rules and the salary cap, only has a few of these types of players for the entire league. Teams like Barcelona can afford to sign a whole team of marquee names, like Thierry Henry, Lionel Messi, and Samuel Eto’o. Broadcasting the Champions League allowed viewers access to the most famous names in soccer overseas that they couldn’t get anywhere else on television.

ESPN certainly has the resources to outbid FSC, it seems however, that they just cared not to, and that is a discouraging sign for the American soccer viewing public.

So what happens now?

Well, ESPN still has rights to the World Cup, soccer’s biggest showcase, in 2010 and 2014. Hopefully, it makes a play to keep those rights even longer, keeping the game’s biggest stage on the most accessible network. They also own the rights to U.S. men’s national team games through 2014, promoting the country’s finest players. So, international competition is still safe for another five years.

ESPN also shares rights with FSC for MLS, airing one game per week. It is a great platform for the league to get exposure. Without having the Champions League, ESPN may have more financial flexibility and broadcasting space to devote more of its soccer coverage to the MLS, which is great. However, what happens when the season ends? How does ESPN continue to promote soccer in the offseason, without games to watch? How does the network increase the sport’s visibility?

FSC is strictly a soccer station, and can devote all its attention to promoting the game. However, in this country, there is the visibility factor. Soccer isn’t as mainstream as football or baseball. Americans may not know who the best players in the world are because they’ve never watched them on TV. FSC isn’t available to every person in this country, and the non-fan that’s interested in checking out what the buzz is about isn’t going to buy a subscription to FSC to check it out. ESPN was good for bringing in the casual fan.

ESPN needs to strengthen its position in the soccer universe. How can the worldwide leader in sports have so little coverage of the world’s game?

Game of the Knight

AP Photo/Joe Cavaretta

Thursday night’s ESPN college basketball doubleheader started off with a matchup between the Duke Blue Devils and the St. John’s Red Storm. Covering the game for ESPN was play-by-play man Brent Musburger, color commentator Bob Knight, and sideline reporter Holly Rowe. Musburger and Knight are two highly respected individuals in the world of college basketball so it made sense to have them cover a game with such a high profile program like Duke.

Before the tip-off Musburger and Knight explained why the game was important for both teams. This was a great way to start because it told the viewer what was at stake and why they should want to watch this game. They described that Duke was on a two-game losing streak and needed this game to snap out of their funk, and for St. John’s it was an opportunity for their young squad—all five starters were sophomores—to play in a primetime matchup for a national audience against one of the premier schools in the nation.

Knight was a great “X’s and O’s” guy as a coach and that has carried over into his career as an analyst. During the game he does a great job of identifying what the team is doing and why it works or doesn’t work, as well as what they need to do to get a better result. The viewer can come out of Knight’s broadcast with a better understanding of the intricacies of basketball, just like they were being coached by him at the University of Indiana.

Musburger does a good job of “driving the bus” and bringing up good discussion points for Knight to analyze. However, on this night, he seemed too low-key. It almost sounds like he was working through a cold. His voice was really low, soft, and delivered in monotone. You really had to pay close attention to understand what he was saying.

Knight, as informative as he was, was also a bit dull covering the game. Neither Knight nor Musburger had any excitement in their voice. As a sport fan, the viewer gets excited by a great play, and I think it’s OK if the announcer gets excited too. Part of the allure of sports is the entertainment value and watching someone do something incredible that the average person can’t do. Yet neither seems to be affected by any singular moment. Maybe it’s because they have both been around for so long and have seen so much that they are, in a way, desensitized. At one point in the game Duke forward Lance Thomas lunges for a defensive rebound, collects the ball, and as he is falling to the ground he throws a full court pass to teammate Elliot Williams, who scores a lay-up. Knight claims this play is at least one of the top five passes from the season, but there is no excitement in his voice. His tone describing the play is the same as when he was describing the type of offense Duke was running. As the game goes on, this becomes a much bigger problem.

Duke took control of the second half, dominating a young St. John’s team. The announcers aren’t exciting, and now the game isn’t exciting either. Without that excitement, the viewer starts to drift away from the game. I was no longer fully interested knowing that Duke was on their way to an easy victory, and the announcers didn’t do much to keep me interested. However, St. John’s didn’t quit, and with about three minutes left they made a comeback, closing a double-digit deficit to only eight points. The announcers were still delivering in their monotone voices though, without any inflection of excitement or amazement, and I didn’t even realize how close it was getting. What could have been an exciting comeback just passed me by because the announcers couldn’t draw me back in.

By excitement, I don’t mean that they had to be like Dick Vitale. Vitale seems to be excited about everything and as the game goes on it gets to be a little over the top and irritating. However, Knight and Musburger were too dull and in a game that wasn’t very close for most of the time, it really made me less interested in watching it, undoing all the good work they did earlier in the game.

That would be the one area that needs to be improved. Otherwise, the knowledge that Musburger and Knight brought to the telecast was excellent.

One game, three stories

AP Photo/Kathy Willens

Two nights after Kobe Bryant scorched the Knicks at Madison Square Garden for 61 points it was LeBron James’ turn to put on a show on Broadway. He didn’t disappoint. In a 107-102 victory on Feb. 4, James recorded a double-double, scoring 52 points and dishing out 11 assists. He also grabbed nine rebounds and even swatted away two shots.

Anytime a marquee player takes the court in New York the stage is set for a lot of media coverage. Take the double-double and combine it with Bryant’s performance the previous game, James’ bid for league most valuable player, and the ongoing speculation that he will bolt Cleveland for the bright lights of New York, and you have a slew of storylines to choose from.

I read three separate pieces concerning the Cavaliers game against the Knicks: an Associated Press story from ESPN.com, Brian Windhorst’s piece for The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Howard Beck’s story for The New York Times. Each included the basics of the game, but they differed in style and theme.

The ESPN piece provided the essentials of the game story, but also wrote mainly about comparing James’ night to Bryant’s. The first sentence of the article is, “Not quite Kobe Bryant.” This immediately sets the tone that this story is going to compare the two high scoring nights. A number of the quotes from James and D’Antoni answered questions comparing the two nights. The story also noted that unlike Bryant, James was not cheered loudly by the visiting crowd. I liked that, although the theme was set, they still had a sufficient rundown of the game, including key moments. One thing that I think they should have done, seeing as it was more of a “hard news” style from a national wire service, would be to have included at least one quote from a Knicks player, mentioning what it was like to guard James while he was so hot.

Beck’s story for The New York Times had a little more of the hometown flavor to it. The piece did have some of the same quotes as the AP recap on ESPN and also included a comparison of James’ and Bryant’s performances, but it also contained the successes and failures of the paper’s home team. There were more quotes from D’Antoni, as well as from Knicks forward David Lee. The story was written in more of a feature style, putting in anecdotes about how James enjoyed himself at the Garden and was playful with the arena throughout the game, even though it was a tight contest. Those insights were foreshadowing to the mention of every New York media member’s seemingly favorite story line concerning James: the idea that he could sign with the Knicks as a free agent in the summer of 2010. The story ended with the sentence, “That moment might not come until 2010 — coinciding, the Knicks hope, with a jersey change by James.”

Windhorst’s article for The Cleveland Plain Dealer was strictly done in a “hard news” style. The story stuck to game play-by-play. There was only one mention of Kobe Bryant. Staying true to the form of a hometown paper there was a quote from Cleveland head coach Mike Brown to go along with those from James, the only story of the three to include his voice. Also there was absolutely no mention of the possibility of James bolting to the Big Apple. I liked this particular aspect of the article. Windhorst really played to his audience by not writing anything about the city’s star potentialy leaving them. The Cavs’ faithful have been hearing this story for over a year now and it has to be driving them crazy. While all the other news outlets use this theme to some extent in their coverage of the game, the hometown paper made sure not to further distress its readers.

Comparing and contrasting these three published articles provides a great lesson to all journalists. Although the game is the same for everybody, there are a number of stories and themes that can be brought out from it. They key is to play to your audience. If you are a city paper, you are going to include more information about the hometown team instead of a general overview. If you are writing for a broader market, you write to the biggest storyline that the game has to offer. It is up to you to decide who your audience is and what they want.

Here are the links to the three stories.
AP recap on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=290204018
Beck's article for The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sports/basketball/05knicks.html?ref=sports
Windhorst's story for The Cleveland Plain Dealer: http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2009/02/unstoppable_james_epic_garden.html

What's number one in sports programming?

Sports media is a crowded department. There are the sections in the newspaper, countless numbers of magazines, talk radio stations, and 24-hour television programming. You have the choice of mainstream news or niche news. You can tune into local sports action, national coverage, and with today’s technology even international coverage. For me, however, one program stands above the rest: “Pardon the Interruption” on ESPN.

Hosted by veteran writers Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, the show is full of information, knowledge, and entertainment. For those who have yet to watch the show, Wilbon and Kornheiser tackle breaking topics from the day in sports. They get a certain amount of time to discuss or argue about the topic. When the buzzer sounds, it’s time to move on to the next subject. This aspect of the show is particularly appealing to me. Having a time limit on each subject allows them to talk about other, less dwelled on topics that occur during the day. Variety is the spice of life, and “PTI” provides it. I recall a time a couple of summers ago watching a 90 minute edition of “Sportscenter”. Over the entire episode, three news stories were covered: Michael Vick’s arrest on charges of dog fighting, Barry Bonds and the steroids investigation, and the Tim Donaghy scandal. Sure, these were all big stories, but there was more that happened during the day. I got tired of hearing about these three stories and these three stories alone. You won’t ever see that happen on “PTI”.

“PTI” is good sports journalism. Wilbon and Kornheiser definitely do their homework. They are able to discuss each of the subjects given to them in length and detail. They can intelligently argue and defend their side of arguments and their opinions. Even if the argument gets loud, it is only because they are passionate about the side they are taking, not to drown out the other person. They are humorous and entertaining in their discussions as well.

One thing people may say is that the hosts are biased. Wilbon is infamous for supporting his hometown Chicago Cubs, Bears, and Bulls. The same goes for Kornheiser and his support for the New York Knicks and his longtime friend, coach Larry Brown. My response would be what real sports fan doesn’t have bias? You get into sports journalism because you are such a big fan. Wilbon and Kornheiser are honest about their biases. They don’t hide them, but they make sure that they don’t get in the way of their reporting. They are fair to everyone and everything they cover.

At the end of the day, “Pardon the Interruption” is the class of sports programming. With coverage of a variety of subjects, both mainstream and niche news, honesty, passion, entertainment, and pure knowledge, it is the best place to go to get your sports fix. You’ll be glad you allowed them to interrupt your normal coverage.

"Pardon the Interruption" clip about bloggers. Video from Youtube via ESPN.