It’s about American baseball specifically, but this forum post at Poynter Online is a useful starting point in discussing the nature of sporting journalism in Australia.
But there is a much bigger problem here. Sportswriters want to be one of the boys and accepted in the exclusive sports clubbing world. As the Dallas Morning News writer Gary Jacobson pointed out “a beat writer has to continue covering a team or a sport. If you piss people off, they shut you out.”
No writer wants to be shut out, the majority of sportswriters are fans first, extensions of team’s public relations departments second and journalists, maybe third.
I always felt that this piss off/shut out deal was an important factor in sports journalists critically assessing one of Australia’s most important cultural assets. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that many longstanding journalists/sportswriters in Australia are reluctant to dig too deeply into the issues that affect the sports they cover for for exactly this reason, and many still show signs of a fan first, journalist second mentality, with television a particularly shallow culprit.
It’s not that I think that cycling journalists/sportswriters should not cover their sports as fans, by all means do so, if anything, the world needs a good dose of escapism from the troubles that bedevil it, and sport as entertainment is well placed to deliver us that little bit of respite.
However, it’s also big money, business and media with a whole range of back stories in those areas that need to be critically reported on, and of course sport has become such an important part of our cultural life and in some cases a reflection the social ills seen in general society that this produces many rich veins of investigation that demands sportswriters always keep a jaundiced eye out for the bad actors inside the beat they cover.
So, does modern sporting journalism mean you check your critical faculties at the press pass gate and are Australian sporting journalists guilty of this charge?
7 responses so far ↓
Tony.T // Oct 19, 2006 at 11:47 am
“Official broadcaster” is a term guaranteed to water down any criticism.
dj // Oct 19, 2006 at 11:51 am
If they have a vested interest in the product’s success, then critical examination is unlikely to occur.
Shaun // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:41 pm
In Sydney the Daily Telegraph have seemingly conducted campaigns against several NRL clubs.
dj // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Let me guess….not the Broncos or the Storm?
Phil // Oct 19, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Mostly Cantebury Doggies. And obviously Warney hs copped his fair share of criticism, but rathere than texting barmaids and personal issues I’m talking about stuff like a serious look at Frank Loweys involvement in the FFA and it’s meaning and John Coates at the AOC.
The Games on the ABC did a better job of doing critical stuff on the Sydney Olympics that any sporting outlet.
Roy Masters is one of my faves as far as critically assessing issues deriving from sport.
dj // Oct 19, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I think this is indicative of the state of journalism in general across much of the world. There aren’t many outlets that are large to support good investigative journalism that are not beholden to large corporate interests and the advertisers that support them.
Shaun // Oct 19, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Relations between the Tele and the Bulldogs were very frosty at one stage. Suggestions of a campaign against the Eels as well (though I may be biased here) though it may have been more aimed at Brian Smith.
On the other side, the Nine NRL Footy Show worships the Kights.