Monday, August 11, 2008

Uh, thanks for that clarification...

Do sportswriters actually think the people who read their columns are idiots? As I was perusing Olympics coverage on CNN/SportsIllustrated, I came across this piece of brilliance by a reporter who says he normally covers track and field, but, by his tone, must have drawn the short straw to cover cycling, swimming, and horseback riding. As he attempts to explain those events in terms of what he knows (track and field), he writes that "cycling is track on bikes," "swimming is track in the water," and "horse racing (track on horseback)." I appreciate him putting those events in terms of track and field. I feel much better having this piece of information tucked away as I watch some of the swimming events.

Do sportswriters really think they can write about things they don't know anything about? Do they think they can fool readers? That'd be like me writing for an astronomy publication just because I know those little white dots in the night sky are called stars (track in space). With just a little information, anyone can be an expert (in their own mind) in today's internet age.

(What's playing: Tom Waits Glitter and Doom concert podcast from All Songs Considered - 2 hours and 12 minutes of a great concert.)

2 comments:

Guitar Ted said...

Yeah...brilliant job there!

You know, there was a day and age where reporters routinely covered events they were not familiar with and they did that by doing something most of today's prima donna reporters don't do. They "worked".

That's right! They asked questions, they researched, and they thought the job through intelligently.

It seems as if this guy was all about making it easy, instead of doing the job right.

Xd said...

tom waits saves the day...