The idea for this week’s post come from Scott Appleman, the author of Thrill Shot and a recent graduate of our online sports journalism master’s degree program at St.
I'm glad you mentioned the old 2000s-era debate over blogging vs. "real journalism", as embodied by that famous Bob Costas panel with Will Leitch and Buzz Bissinger. There's a place for all of it. As someone who's been called a Data Journalist at different times in his career, I think that's a useful way of framing our wing of the journalism sphere -- we are "interviewing" the data. The shoe-leather aspect is getting in the trenches of finding (sometimes creating!) and then analyzing the data. It's no less real journalism than interviewing a human source.
Neil, I'm so glad you're here. Been an admirer of your work since the 538 days. And you're absolutely right. All different types of journalism live next to each other within this ecosystem, and that's what makes it healthy. The trouble has always comes when one form of reporting - and yeah, it's almost always "shoe leather" - is elevated as being right and virtuous.
Love this perspective! The best data work I've seen, on here or from other media outlets, does feel like it's unearthing something from the numbers, like the writer asked questions of the data and dug into what the resulting answers revealed about the subject. I hadn't thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
Fair. Although I think by this point, most people know what to expect from sports talk radio. Substack is weird in that way, because as much as any site, real top-notch professional journalism sits right next to work that is, well, not.
There's also this weird gray area made up of former sports journalists, who don't rely on access, but have credibility because they operated as trained sports journalists. Myself, included.
Substack is an interesting work in that regard, Kevin. You've got former journalists like you and me and Jared, current journalists like Scott and Neil, and other writers. And they are all sitting next to each other in one centralized place.
But do they? Dan Patrick and Rich Eisen exist in one space, while Dan Dakich was in a whole other. Just because you’re bad at the job or half-assing it doesn’t mean that you aren’t a professional in that field.
That said, your point is taken about the reporting angle. I guess that’s the river separating all Substacks. There’s a gap between me talking about grief and a social worker who actually works with people in this field. Or, the professional pundits at The Bulwark and people just shouting into the void.
I think the writer/blogger/journalist's perspective on the sporting event, team, game is what makes some stand out. Bill Simmons from back in the day really offered no reporting, yet he's gone on to contribute via Page 2, Grantland, and now The Ringer, including his podcasts, although sadly, he doesn't write anywhere near as much as he uses to. Also, people like Chris Cillizza, here on Substack, is offering his perspective on politics and the presidential election. He's not reporting, per se, for instance he's not at the DNC, but he's offering a watch-along, and I'm sure is working his "sources" or fellow reporters for information.
Brian, exactly right! It's why I've always thought that bloggers shouldn't want to be credentialed at games and sit in the press box. The value they bring to the ecosystem isn't the access to the same sources the daily reporters have, it's their unique perspective.
I know I'm guilty of "screen journalism," especially as I don't have a ton of sources. But I like the distinction between "screen" and "shoe leather" journalism. I don't get to do as much capital-J-journalism, as I like to call it, as I would want to. But, I still think my perspective of working in sports allows some of the "screen" stuff to shine more than it should. Do you think it's more the actual access, or the knowledge a person has that generates value?
Love your perspective here, Griffin. I think it depends on the person and what they bring to the work. For as much as we lionize shoe-leather reporting, if the person isn't any good at reporting, or they're lazy, then the access doesn't really matter right? I think it's the knowledge, combined with the quality of the sources, combined with the skills of the writer or reporter.
Thanks for tackling my question, Brian! I appreciate the throwback to the early blog days, and I love that it all comes down to providing value to your audience. Shoe leather reporting and personal access feel like they obviously hit that mark because most people can't go where reporters go and can't sit down with the people they interview. The best data work feels like it reveals something previously unknown that was actually right in front of the audience the whole time; we were all watching the same games, but the analyst saw a pattern and broke it down clearly.
I hope my reference to standards didn't come across incorrectly. I didn't mean to insinuate that writers on Substack work with inferior sources. Not at all! Rather, the newsletter/social media model of "person with a device who can hit 'Publish'" changes the process of production and, as you covered, puts work with all different standards in the same digital space.
Scott, I appreciate the question. Keep 'em coming! Also, to everyone else, give Scott a subscription and a follow. He's one of our top grads from our program at Bona's.
I'm glad you mentioned the old 2000s-era debate over blogging vs. "real journalism", as embodied by that famous Bob Costas panel with Will Leitch and Buzz Bissinger. There's a place for all of it. As someone who's been called a Data Journalist at different times in his career, I think that's a useful way of framing our wing of the journalism sphere -- we are "interviewing" the data. The shoe-leather aspect is getting in the trenches of finding (sometimes creating!) and then analyzing the data. It's no less real journalism than interviewing a human source.
Neil, I'm so glad you're here. Been an admirer of your work since the 538 days. And you're absolutely right. All different types of journalism live next to each other within this ecosystem, and that's what makes it healthy. The trouble has always comes when one form of reporting - and yeah, it's almost always "shoe leather" - is elevated as being right and virtuous.
Love this perspective! The best data work I've seen, on here or from other media outlets, does feel like it's unearthing something from the numbers, like the writer asked questions of the data and dug into what the resulting answers revealed about the subject. I hadn't thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
You could also replace Substack and blog with "most sports talk radio."
Fair. Although I think by this point, most people know what to expect from sports talk radio. Substack is weird in that way, because as much as any site, real top-notch professional journalism sits right next to work that is, well, not.
There's also this weird gray area made up of former sports journalists, who don't rely on access, but have credibility because they operated as trained sports journalists. Myself, included.
Substack is an interesting work in that regard, Kevin. You've got former journalists like you and me and Jared, current journalists like Scott and Neil, and other writers. And they are all sitting next to each other in one centralized place.
But do they? Dan Patrick and Rich Eisen exist in one space, while Dan Dakich was in a whole other. Just because you’re bad at the job or half-assing it doesn’t mean that you aren’t a professional in that field.
That said, your point is taken about the reporting angle. I guess that’s the river separating all Substacks. There’s a gap between me talking about grief and a social worker who actually works with people in this field. Or, the professional pundits at The Bulwark and people just shouting into the void.
I think the writer/blogger/journalist's perspective on the sporting event, team, game is what makes some stand out. Bill Simmons from back in the day really offered no reporting, yet he's gone on to contribute via Page 2, Grantland, and now The Ringer, including his podcasts, although sadly, he doesn't write anywhere near as much as he uses to. Also, people like Chris Cillizza, here on Substack, is offering his perspective on politics and the presidential election. He's not reporting, per se, for instance he's not at the DNC, but he's offering a watch-along, and I'm sure is working his "sources" or fellow reporters for information.
Brian, exactly right! It's why I've always thought that bloggers shouldn't want to be credentialed at games and sit in the press box. The value they bring to the ecosystem isn't the access to the same sources the daily reporters have, it's their unique perspective.
Real interesting stuff here, Brian!
I know I'm guilty of "screen journalism," especially as I don't have a ton of sources. But I like the distinction between "screen" and "shoe leather" journalism. I don't get to do as much capital-J-journalism, as I like to call it, as I would want to. But, I still think my perspective of working in sports allows some of the "screen" stuff to shine more than it should. Do you think it's more the actual access, or the knowledge a person has that generates value?
Love your perspective here, Griffin. I think it depends on the person and what they bring to the work. For as much as we lionize shoe-leather reporting, if the person isn't any good at reporting, or they're lazy, then the access doesn't really matter right? I think it's the knowledge, combined with the quality of the sources, combined with the skills of the writer or reporter.
Thanks for the reply, Brian! I agree with you completely, the mixture of knowledge, sources and skills makes the best content.
Thanks for tackling my question, Brian! I appreciate the throwback to the early blog days, and I love that it all comes down to providing value to your audience. Shoe leather reporting and personal access feel like they obviously hit that mark because most people can't go where reporters go and can't sit down with the people they interview. The best data work feels like it reveals something previously unknown that was actually right in front of the audience the whole time; we were all watching the same games, but the analyst saw a pattern and broke it down clearly.
I hope my reference to standards didn't come across incorrectly. I didn't mean to insinuate that writers on Substack work with inferior sources. Not at all! Rather, the newsletter/social media model of "person with a device who can hit 'Publish'" changes the process of production and, as you covered, puts work with all different standards in the same digital space.
Scott, I appreciate the question. Keep 'em coming! Also, to everyone else, give Scott a subscription and a follow. He's one of our top grads from our program at Bona's.