There are a many parallels between the coverage of sports and politics. In many ways the styles of coverage are exactly the same. Watch around the horn and tell me it doesnt look like race for the white house with david Gregory did. An especially interesting parallel is the way sports reporters will cover sports and the way that political reporters cover sports. To illustrate this i would like to offer the conversation between Bill "the sports guy" simmons and rick reilly on the topic of sports bloggers.
the reason that this conversation is so great is that these guys could easily be talking about political bloggers and traditional press. the dynamic and the complaints are the same in both cases. the link is here and the discussion starts at the 26 minute mark.
The side of the traditional press is represented by Reilly while Bill Simmons takes a more blogger friendly approach. Note though that both are friends and that this is not a repubilcan vs dem style talk. its much more colleageal. this discussion with chuck klosterman is on the same topic, newspapers v the internet.
A key issue in this discussion with Reilly is access as it is in every critique and discussion about media. Bill Simmons made the point in a recent mailbag that major papers are failing to use the coveted access that they have to deliver on things observers without access cant get. Here is his point about sports writers and access,
The bigger question: What's the point of having reporters or columnists sit courtside when 97 percent of them don't use that access for their stories? Most of the savvier teams (the Lakers, Celtics, Cavs and others) already came to that realization and moved press sections to the corners or balconies. With very rare exceptions, that phenomenal access rarely translates to the following things: Overheard conversations on the court; overheard strategies in the team huddle; funny tidbits from the game that I couldn't get from watching on TV; or anything else of that ilk. Given the ridiculous demands of newspaper deadlines, writers often spend the entire second half working on their stories. Check press row in the last few minutes of a game. No one is watching the game. WHY ARE YOU THERE THEN? Jason Quick (The Oregonian) and Brian Windhorst (Cleveland Plain Dealer) are two examples of thoughtful beat writers who use their access as a strength -- not just plum courtside seating, but locker room access for overheard conversations, mood reads or even armchair psychology -- and really, that's why I have both of them bookmarked. Bloggers might have advantages in the immediacy and candidness departments. But there are too few Quicks and Windhorsts and too many Everyone Elses. That's reason No. 485 why newspapers are struggling so badly right now; their writers squandered unbelievable access to sporting events to the degree that readers gravitated toward the opinions of columnists and bloggers writing from their living rooms.
quick point about this as it might relate to politics is that the chuck todds, david gregory's, jake tappers, etc who have this tremendous access to the power players in the government tend to waste it. They pull an Ed Henry and do things that are self indulgent and make the story more about them than anything important. Or conversely they might hide things discovered with the access because revealing things that might be embarrassing is too hard when you have to see that person later. This last point is one offered by Reilly in defense of not using access to critique or otherwise question the access granters at around the 30 min mark.
Reilly responds directly to the Simmons quote above. Reilly asserts that you cant critique the writers because your not there your not part of that world. Reilly asserts that the access does translate in the long run into stuff that bloggers are not qualified to critique because they lack the same access or 31 years of experience. Reilly also asserts that he approaches the writing as a "professional" while Simmons approaches it "as a fan". Reilly certainly seems to have the attitude evident in the traditional media political reporters. Bloggers in the parents basement is even mentioned as is the fact that bloggers "just make stuff up". His complaint about the blogger in question is just but he seems to be caught up generalizing about blogs and bloggers. He views it as gossip and not legitimate analysis comparing blogs to the cattiness of 7th grade girls.
Reilly may or may not be a bad guy, i dont know him and im not interested in passing judgment on him personally. However his views about blogs point out exactly why newspapers and the traditional media are falling apart. There is a general assumption that runs through the discussion that the attraction of blogs is their ability to be "new" in a continuous stream. This is an incorrect view. That would more accurately describe cable news and their "breaking" style of coverage built on sensationalism and drama. Blogs are very different in their ability to inform and present complex and important analysis missing from newspapers and the reports of those with the access. i read the blogs that i do because i can learn and better understand the political events of the day based on their writings and analysis.
During the campaign the press pool that followed Obama and McCain where very similar to the sports beat writer. Did we really need huge pools of reporters following Obama and reporting the same things? The failure to take advantage of the access granted to reporters is a major issue in both sports and political journalism. If we let Digby or Steve Benen ask the questions and have the same access to the power brokers would the quality of the work go up or down? i have to think it would go up.