Sports writing: To snark or not to snark. Which do you prefer?
DiscussieThe Sports Bar
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1LibraryPerilous
I posted some comments on this article, and I do admit that I may be reacting more harshly than necessary to this particular article's tone. Megdal is one of my favorite baseball writers; it's disappointing to see him descend to this offhand rudeness. So, straws>camels, etc.
However, what does everyone think of my overall point? Do you agree or disagree that sports writing is trending toward snark, ironic detachment, and mockery? Do you like this postmodern attitude (All the world's a blog, and all the athletes merely fodder for them)? Do you think my nostalgia is for things that never were?
ETA: It should be obvious which handle on the site is mine! ;)
However, what does everyone think of my overall point? Do you agree or disagree that sports writing is trending toward snark, ironic detachment, and mockery? Do you like this postmodern attitude (All the world's a blog, and all the athletes merely fodder for them)? Do you think my nostalgia is for things that never were?
ETA: It should be obvious which handle on the site is mine! ;)
2theoria
Sports journalism is a level above the celebrity beat. It veers between mockery and unrelenting self-righteousness. I suppose writers on sports pages can get away with things that wouldn't be tolerated on front pages. But the main problem is that straight forward sports "reporting" is now laced with opinion. Errors are never corrected.
3LibraryPerilous
>2 theoria: Yes. This author's responses to me, and his original article, had both!
I expect too much from it, I suppose. I pine for the days when a wrap up was just that, and the beat writer didn't start off his or her report with, "I think the team should give old Jimbo the heave ho. He's really pressing and looks like he doesn't care. His poor performance makes it hard to watch this team." Then don't watch. And I long for a return to the separate, longform pieces that highlighted the sociocultural aspects of sports. I blame ESPN and its 24-hour 'news' cycle format.
After I started this thread, I received another response from the writer, and he implied that I, as a reader of his output, didn't have the right to question his motives: "It's lazy and silly." Then why publish? It's not an article that will solve world hunger, but that's no excuse for ineptitude and rudeness. Don't write crappy, vague articles making fun of people and you won't get called out for it.
That seems to me the height of unrelenting self-righteousness, to assume that what you wrote is so perfect it's beyond reproach. Ugh.
I expect too much from it, I suppose. I pine for the days when a wrap up was just that, and the beat writer didn't start off his or her report with, "I think the team should give old Jimbo the heave ho. He's really pressing and looks like he doesn't care. His poor performance makes it hard to watch this team." Then don't watch. And I long for a return to the separate, longform pieces that highlighted the sociocultural aspects of sports. I blame ESPN and its 24-hour 'news' cycle format.
After I started this thread, I received another response from the writer, and he implied that I, as a reader of his output, didn't have the right to question his motives: "It's lazy and silly." Then why publish? It's not an article that will solve world hunger, but that's no excuse for ineptitude and rudeness. Don't write crappy, vague articles making fun of people and you won't get called out for it.
That seems to me the height of unrelenting self-righteousness, to assume that what you wrote is so perfect it's beyond reproach. Ugh.
4WaynePD
Hi Diana...looks interesting, to say the least, and youre a creationist too, I see (of the sportsbar that is;)!
