SD station killing sports

[adam & doctor drew]

of course they don't have the guts to really do it. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/page2/20080718-9999-1s18mediacol.html)

I'm sure that 3 minutes they were giving sports at 29 after the hour will now be used to revolutionize news coverage in the market.

[NewsguyMark]

The Padres are tanking this year. And the Chargers play on Sunday, so, for now, he gets away with it. But only for now.

[Randy Steinman]

I'm sure that 3 minutes they were giving sports at 29 after the hour will now be used to revolutionize news coverage in the market.


I guarantee that every other station in Sandy Eggo is smiling a little today. Another example of a market dog caving to an insultant.

Since there's nowhere to go but up for this shop, this can't possibly hurt ratings. And the insultant will proudly say, "See? Dropping sports didn't hurt your numbers at all!"

[Sultanosurf]

You still don't get a clue on what he's planning to fill those precious minutes.

Agree or not with the idea, the logic of dumping half your audience (Or more) to run sports is still baffling in an age with endless other sports options.

[adam & doctor drew]

Agree or not with the idea, the logic of dumping half your audience (Or more) to run sports is still baffling in an age with endless other sports options.

even if that were true, you're "dumping half your audience" at 27/28/29 after the hour, long after the 2nd quarter-hour click has passed.
so sports, good or bad, can't affect the ratings either way at that point.

and as far as the "endless other sports options"........ by that logic, wouldn't CNN, FNC, MSNBC and the like present "endless other news options"?

and wouldn't the Weather Channel be another weather option?

[Jax]

even if that were true, you're "dumping half your audience" at 27/28/29 after the hour, long after the 2nd quarter-hour click has passed.
so sports, good or bad, can't affect the ratings either way at that point.

and as far as the "endless other sports options"........ by that logic, wouldn't CNN, FNC, MSNBC and the like present "endless other news options"?

and wouldn't the Weather Channel be another weather option?

News is cheap to produce in comparison to syndicated or other programming. That's why we do it several times a day. Not to mention the fact that there's local interest in local news. The same applies for local weather. CNN isn't going to cover your city council meeting, just as ESPN isn't going to cover the local junior college.

But unless you're going to high school games, the 3 minute sportscast at the end of a show is totally irrelevant. Even then, the "who cares" argument could be made. If people want to know how the Padres are doing, they're going to go to ESPN.

If I were an ND, one of my first orders of business would be to dump sports.

Look, I just saved $100k+ in salary.

[SamG]

and as far as the "endless other sports options"........ by that logic, wouldn't CNN, FNC, MSNBC and the like present "endless other news options"?


Look at at normal newscast... probably 75%+ is "local" (and I use that term to include state & regional) that you can't get from a national news outlet.

Now look at a normal sportscast... with the exception of "Friday Football" (or whatever the station calls it), 75%+ is (at this time of year): MLB scores/highlights, British Open scores/highlights, NASCAR recaps, etc. THAT kind of coverage you CAN get from a national news outlet.

I personally don't think sports should be cut out, but I do think NDs should force the sports department to be LOCAL! When's the last time you tuned into a local cast just to see the score of a professional game?

[RollTide98]

I can understand some markets cutting sports.

But I wouldn't have thought of San Diego as being one of those markets.

In my own market, Birmingham, college sports and high school football are HUGE, and our sports department is utilized heavily. The key is that our sports team doesn't just read highlights. They break stories.

It's not uncommon for certain sports stories to even lead a show with the sports director on set to introduce whatever he's got. And even on slow nights, there's always something they'll tell you in the regular sportscast that you won't find anywhere else.

All sports departments will have to do the same if they want to be taken seriously and seen by the station as a good source of revenue.

[adam & doctor drew]

If I were an ND, one of my first orders of business would be to dump sports.
Look, I just saved $100k+ in salary.

and I'd be totally fine with that.
if a station's going to have zero commitment to it, they may as well cancel it, as opposed to giving sports a minute at 5, 1:30 at 6 and 2:00 at 11.

who is that even for?

[adam & doctor drew]

If people want to know how the Padres are doing, they're going to go to ESPN.


and, I'd argue, if people want to know how Obama or Bush or Britney are doing, they'll also go to a national channel, not local.

[Jax]

and, I'd argue, if people want to know how Obama or Bush or Britney are doing, they'll also go to a national channel, not local.

That's a correct argument, but there's still a demand for local news. I don't think many believe there is a demand for local sports.

[adam & doctor drew]

agree Jax, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the "sports fans can/will get their fix from ESPN" argument that every local sports person has heard over and over for years.

it never seems to apply to news or weather.

[s'news]

That's a correct argument, but there's still a demand for local news. I don't think many believe there is a demand for local sports.

On a daily basis, among the folks at large, I don't there really is that much "demand" for local news.

Plenty of people watch it and there is an audience. They may leave it on after watching Oprah. They may watch it because it's on at a bar or restaurant. They will tune it in when big stuff is happening. But I don't think all that many people "demand" it on a daily basis.

[Randy Steinman]

I never like to get involved in these, "Stations should just drop sports" arguments. But I'll make an exception this time, because a couple of comments made by Rich Goldner, the Sandy Eggo ND, really tick me off.

"You (the viewer) are not going to miss anything," he said. In effect, he's telling all the viewers in his market, "If we don't show it, it's not important."

Wow, what a blantant disregard for his audience.

I'm reminded of a local all-news radio station in our market which recently ran promos trumpeting, "If you didn't hear it, it didn't happen."

That's a pretty impressive statement. I suppose if a local company lays everyone off - and forementioned radio station doesn't cover it - those newly-unemployed people can take heart in knowing that their jobs apparently weren't very important anyway.

A local station "can't do highlights like ESPN can," Goldner said.

Newsflash: Nor should it. Nor would it want to. Let me tell you something. If his station's Sports Department was doing a mini wannabe version of ESPN, he wasn't giving them proper direction to begin with.

I find it fascinating that his station still plans to cover stories like Mike Vick and Brett Favre. I'm not aware of Vick or Favre having strong ties to Southern California...and viewers there can certainly get their fill of those stories from sources like ESPN. (For the record, the Vick and Favre stories have never been mentioned on any of my sportscasts in the past year. Seriously.)

I've been in this industry for 29 years, the last 27 in sports (in both radio and teevee). For 17 of those years, I have been a SD. I'll admit that I'm still learning something new about this biz every week. But I think I have developed a pretty good idea of what our viewers want and expect.

I became SD at my current regional network affiliate shop in 1997, after eight years of working up the ladder. When I first arrived, we were a five-person department with dominant ratings, covering the same pro sports our shop had covered for 40 years.

By 1997, we were still #1. But with a much tighter budget - and a department which attrition had reduced to 2.5 people - we literally had to re-invent ourselves overnight.

Instead of relying soley on the same old, tired sports highlights and cliche-riddled SOT's everyone else was showing, we began story-telling. We began working the phones and building contacts. We began digging for local stories nobody else had told yet. We stopped reading the local papers. We made a real effort to become (*gasp*) journalists.

Suddenly, we had viewers occasionally complimenting us with comments like, "I don't like watching sports, but I enjoy watching you guys." Or, "Your sports is the best local part of the whole newscast." People noticed.

These days, a perfect cast for us is one which is 100% full of regional content which ESPN would probably never show. And, quite often, we are able to accomplish it. My Friday night cast shared only about 30 seconds in common with ESPN. (A Greg Norman putt. Sergio Garcia missing a 10-inch putt. Two home runs from our local Major League Baseball team's loss.)

The rest of our Friday sportscast was all local. But we had to work for it.

It meant we broke the story of a local woman, a pole vaulter, who had to pull out of next month's Beijing Olympics because of a knee injury. She came to us to describe the anguish of seeing four years of hard work go down the drain.

It meant working the phones to get results of some local athletes at final pre-Olympic tune-up events. And some others who were representing our area at national championships.

It meant rolling on seven hours of the British Open - just so we made sure we had the key shots of a local golfer triple-bogeying his way out of contention in round three.

It meant getting a camera out to two non-televised local sports events, which drew thousands of spectators. (Incidentally, both results were ignored by the local all-news radio station, meaning all those people attended games which apparently "didn't happen.")

I'm not saying any of these stories changed the world. I'm not that naive. But they did show our audience that we sincerely care about what goes on in the region they call home. Hopefully we gave each of those people reason to believe that we'll try to do the same for them again... tomorrow.

In my opinion, that's how you build (and maintain) viewer loyalty. It sure doesn't happen overnight.

And it definitely doesn't happen by telling members of your potential audience, "Go away. But come back on those days we decide you're important."

RPS

[SamG]

Instead of relying soley on the same old, tired sports highlights and cliche-riddled SOT's everyone else was showing, we began story-telling. We began working the phones and building contacts. We began digging for local stories nobody else had told yet. We stopped reading the local papers. We made a real effort to become (*gasp*) journalists.

Suddenly, we had viewers occasionally complimenting us with comments like, "I don't like watching sports, but I enjoy watching you guys." Or, "Your sports is the best local part of the whole newscast." People noticed.

These days, a perfect cast for us is one which is 100% full of regional content which ESPN would probably never show. And, quite often, we are able to accomplish it. My Friday night cast shared only about 30 seconds in common with ESPN. (A Greg Norman putt. Sergio Garcia missing a 10-inch putt. Two home runs from our local Major League Baseball team's loss.)

The rest of our Friday sportscast was all local. But we had to work for it.

It meant we broke the story of a local woman, a pole vaulter, who had to pull out of next month's Beijing Olympics because of a knee injury. She came to us to describe the anguish of seeing four years of hard work go down the drain.

It meant working the phones to get results of some local athletes at final pre-Olympic tune-up events. And some others who were representing our area at national championships.

It meant rolling on seven hours of the British Open - just so we made sure we had the key shots of a local golfer triple-bogeying his way out of contention in round three.

It meant getting a camera out to two non-televised local sports events, which drew thousands of spectators. (Incidentally, both results were ignored by the local all-news radio station, meaning all those people attended games which apparently "didn't happen.")

I'm not saying any of these stories changed the world. I'm not that naive. But they did show our audience that we sincerely care about what goes on in the region they call home. Hopefully we gave each of those people reason to believe that we'll try to do the same for them again... tomorrow.

In my opinion, that's how you build (and maintain) viewer loyalty. It sure doesn't happen overnight.

And it definitely doesn't happen by telling members of your potential audience, "Go away. But come back on those days we decide you're important."

RPS
Great post Randy. The problem is not many sports departments are willing to work that hard.

[Spike]

"You (the viewer) are not going to miss anything," he said. In effect, he's telling all the viewers in his market, "If we don't show it, it's not important."

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that they'll be covering sports, but treating it as news. Thus, the sports stories that were once concentrated in a block at the end of the newscast will now be interspersed among the other news of the day.

If anything, this approach gives sports reporters at that station a much better incentive to get out in the community and actually cover local sports. When you can fill a sportscast easily with crap off the feeds as a safety net, there's less incentive to cover the community. Take away that safety net, and these guys have to justify their jobs by actually doing them.

A local station "can't do highlights like ESPN can," Goldner said.

Newsflash: Nor should it. Nor would it want to. Let me tell you something. If his station's Sports Department was doing a mini wannabe version of ESPN, he wasn't giving them proper direction to begin with.

But Randy, that's exactly what most sportscasts in this country are. There are a relative few very good sports departments that cover sports in their communities, but there are many more bad sports departments that are only interested in doing their jobs during football season, then rehashing crap from the feeds the rest of the year. Yours may be one of the former, but I remember as a news employee going out and covering soccer, high school sports and amateur sports for the news portion of the newscast because the sports department simply wouldn't do it. I actually had a sports director once tell me he wasn't interested in a local tennis tournament because tennis isn't sports.

And it isn't just a matter of the ND telling the sports director to do more local sports and stop running crap off the feeds. I've seen that attempted at two different stations. Both times it resulted in the SD being pissed off that the ND was intruding upon his authority and telling him how to run his sportscast. In both cases the SD grudgingly complied for a couple of weeks, then went right back to lazily pulling his cast off the feeds.

I see nothing wrong with folding sports into the rest of the newscast and treating it like news, although I think it should be treated as a beat of its own and not just assigned to the first news reporter who doesn't have a story for the day. If there's really that much interest in sports, and there are local sports stories to be covered, then it should actually work out better for the sports reporters to be treated as equals in the newsroom instead of stuck off in the back corner and forgotten until the last five minutes of the newscast.

[Diggin' Bear]

Outstanding post, Randy. I've long thought your concept of sports should apply to everything in a local NEWScast, and when I say news, I include sports and weather.

I've watched a lot of Northwest US newscasts (and you probably know the ones I'm referring to) who almost NEVER show daily highlights unless they mean something. As a result, they're doing what you're doing - looking behind the easy highlight or final score.

Garcia missing a 10-inch putt demostrates exactly why he won't win the British or any other major any time soon, BTW. Where's Upandown when I need him???

I think local newscasts should BREAK local stories - not the newspapers, since they work on such a long lead time, comparatively speaking. I think local newscasts should provide context to a story that's already happened. I think local newscasts should flesh out the human experience (like your lady Olympian! wow.) when someone succeeds or fails.

I see so many news directors taking the easy way out with respect to sports (and in a lot of cases, news, too!) when they try to apply the CNN/ESPN formula. I agree with the SD news director when he says the true Padres/Chargers fan will have already heard/seen the score. Now, Mr. ND - why not go inside the organization and tell me why the 'culture' of SD pro sports seems to lend itself to losing?

Now, that's a story people would tune in to.

[imported_Trojanman]

While I agree with everything Randy says, there is another side of the coin here-and it's something I contemplate every day I'm producing my sportscast...the first thing I ask myself is, "what do the majority of my viewers care about the most?" Obviously, it's an impossible question to answer, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that more folks care about the British, the Favre story, etc. over the local kids playing Legion baseball.

Now when you have a good feature story, a good profile piece, that's a totally different issue. But to go out and "be local" just for the sake of it, especially this time of year, there's a chance you might be doing your viewers a dis-service.

[southwesternguy]

To Randy and Diggin', those may be the best posts ever on this subject. EVER. You guys are both right.

I'm a sports guy who got laid off a couple months ago from my top 10 market weekend job, do you guys have opening at your shops?!?!?!?

What do you guys think about this:

I've always felt that it was a good idea to have sports appear at the same time in the newscast every night. Not everyone sits and watches a whole 1-hour show every time. If you're doing a good job, telling the right stories, bringing the good info every night, shouldn't people know where to find it?

In San Diego, if the people like the way that station covers sports, but are forced to search for it, or sit through things they don't like, won't it get lost in the shuffle?

I hate to bring this up, but sometimes, viewers like to see the PERSON doing sports as much as the content. I've seen it over and over again in several markets. You can't overlook the personality element. It's just not right for the viewer NOT to know when that guy or girl they really like is going to be on on any given night.

[southwesternguy]

Now, Mr. ND - why not go inside the organization and tell me why the 'culture' of SD pro sports seems to lend itself to losing?

Now, that's a story people would tune in to.

The San Diego Chargers have gone to the playoffs four of the last five years, with a trip to the AFC Title Game this past season.

The Padres won their division in '05 and '06 (I know that's not much to brag about in the NL West), and lost a 1-game playoff against the Rockies for a trip to the post season last year.

Not exactly a "culture" of losing by the only two pro teams in town, is it?

[sufferingseattlesportsfan]

Completely agree that LOCAL sports are what will keep our LOCAL tee-vee affiliate operations relevant.

An example from our cast (2 person sports shop) this past Friday. Led off with :45 from Babe Ruth kids playing a state baseball tournament in our backyard, continued with a :15 board on the local minor league games of the night, then the #2 at my suggestion did a fun recap 1:20 PKG of the area's most successful season of summer softball. ONLY then did I show :30 from round 2 of the British Open (we're an ABC affiliate).... followed by a recently added sponsored break... and my favorite story of the week, a 1:45 PKG that introduced our viewers to a local woman that was one of the first counselors at Kyle Petty's Victory Junction Camp (terminally ill children). Found that story thanks to covering a local baseball game earlier in the week and chatting with people in the crowd the day Petty and friends came through town on his annual charity motorcycle ride.

Although I believe we get a TON of time (5:00 at 11, M-F) due mainly to our lack of overall staff, I refuse to fill with feeds until absolutely neccessary! I think it is arrogant to believe local sports done right are worthy of the ax! How many people show up to a council meeting, 250??... an important football, basketball or baseball game, thousands!

So while yea, not every single event can or deserves coverage, and yes the first question I ask myself every afternoon is what viewers want to see most (never a uniform answer there), I strongly believe our segment should and hopefully will not become extinct.

[Spike]

How many people show up to a council meeting, 250??... an important football, basketball or baseball game, thousands!

Well that's pretty terrible logic. It's not how many that show up that is relevant. Perhaps only 250 people show up at the council meeting, but even on a slow day what goes on at that council meeting affects the entire community and everyone in it. Not so with a sports contest, even an important one.

The fact that you think a football game is more important than the community's legislative body says a lot about you.

[The Uhaul Kid]

Lost in the same old arguments about local sports is the fact that MORE journalists are losing their jobs. Sports fan or not, that's never a good thing.

This debate aside, the reason behind the cutting of these jobs is -- I guarantee you -- 100 percent budgetary.

Here's the problem: once the sports departments are dead, and stations still need to trim salary, where do they go next?

[the original buttongod]

In this market, the NBC dropped sports for a while, then brought it back. Now the 3rd place ABC is dropping thiers.

Hurry, hurry, read all about it (http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=7579)

[SamG]

but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that more folks care about the British, the Favre story, etc. over the local kids playing Legion baseball.Sure, some folks may have a passing interest in the National Stories (Open, Favre, etc), but that's NOT why they tune into local sports. Anyone THAT interested will be going to ESPN or the internet to keep up with the story. Granted, someone who's been out all day MAY turn on the local sports to see who won the Open, but then they're going to tune out the rest.


Now when you have a good feature story, a good profile piece, that's a totally different issue. But to go out and "be local" just for the sake of it, especially this time of year, there's a chance you might be doing your viewers a dis-service.I think you're wrong. Make a name for yourself by being local and people will learn to watch you.

[adam & doctor drew]

In this market, the NBC dropped sports for a while, then brought it back. Now the 3rd place ABC is dropping thiers.

Hurry, hurry, read all about it (http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=7579)

the question has been asked for a while on here and I've still not heard a good answer to it:

has there ever been a local station that dropped sports, then zoomed to #1 in the ratings?

[spts]

i will answer your question....

HELL no there has never been a station that cancelled sports and shot to number 1.

for a 3rd place station to think dropping sports is a good thing is rediculous.

until they fix their problems that exist in what airs BEFORE sports, it doesnt matter what they do.

[adam & doctor drew]

precisely.
and yet news manager after news manager will kill sports and try to make the case that it'll somehow improve the newscast.

just admit what it is.... "we don't want to pay the X thousand dollars it costs to have a sports staff... we're doing this 100% to save money."

[Spike]

has there ever been a local station that dropped sports, then zoomed to #1 in the ratings?

They don't have to. If it's really a cost cutting move, then they don't need to go to #1 in the ratings for it to be a good move. If you cut two or three salaries off the budget and see no change whatsoever in ratings, you've just made your stations more profitable without losing any revenue.

Think about it logically. Where do you usually see sports departments being cut? Not at the #1 station, and not usually where the sports guy is a real draw. Usually it's the also-rans, both in stations and sports departments, where sports gets dropped. Their loss isn't going to have an impact on ratings at that kind of station.

From a purely business perspective, if you could shave a couple hundred thousand dollars or more off your news budget with no effect on the ratings, why wouldn't you?

[NotImpressed]

Well that's pretty terrible logic. It's not how many that show up that is relevant. Perhaps only 250 people show up at the council meeting, but even on a slow day what goes on at that council meeting affects the entire community and everyone in it. Not so with a sports contest, even an important one.

The fact that you think a football game is more important than the community's legislative body says a lot about you.

Sorry, Spike: You are living in the way things should be. He is living in the way things are. You can shout to the rooftops about what people should care about, but it doesn't mean they will.

[Spike]

Sorry, Spike: You are living in the way things should be. He is living in the way things are. You can shout to the rooftops about what people should care about, but it doesn't mean they will.

Except that part of being a journalist and part of holding a television broadcast license is the civic duty to report news that is in the public interest, even if the viewers themselves aren't that interested. The station and its reporters have an implicit duty to report on the workings of government. The station does not necessarily have a duty to report on a football game, any more than it has a duty to report on a big rock concert or any other event where thousands of people gather.

Did the sports folks miss that lecture in their journalism classes? Here we have sports guys, who still work in a newsroom, lamenting that they're not being taken seriously by the news side. How are news folks supposed to take any of them seriously when they think it's okay to abandon the basic duties of journalism? Y'all are not helping your case. That is "the way things are."

[adam & doctor drew]

Think about it logically. Where do you usually see sports departments being cut? Not at the #1 station, and not usually where the sports guy is a real draw. Usually it's the also-rans, both in stations and sports departments, where sports gets dropped. Their loss isn't going to have an impact on ratings at that kind of station.

From a purely business perspective, if you could shave a couple hundred thousand dollars or more off your news budget with no effect on the ratings, why wouldn't you?

well by that logic, the also-ran station should also fire a few no-name reporters and weather people, not to mention producers and photogs.
none of them are affecting the ratings either.

[Randy Steinman]

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that they'll be covering sports, but treating it as news. Thus, the sports stories that were once concentrated in a block at the end of the newscast will now be interspersed among the other news of the day.

If anything, this approach gives sports reporters at that station a much better incentive to get out in the community and actually cover local sports. When you can fill a sportscast easily with crap off the feeds as a safety net, there's less incentive to cover the community. Take away that safety net, and these guys have to justify their jobs by actually doing them.

I appreciate your point, Spike. But if I'm a viewer in San Diego and I read comments from a teevee ND that, "our station is dropping its sportscasts, but viewers aren't going to miss anything"... then I'm personally insulted.

If your Sports Department takes pride in what it puts to air every night... has a solid work ethic... and leads rather than follows... of course, your viewers are going to miss it when you pull the plug.

There's no possible way that, in a city of 1.3-million people, there aren't countless terrific sports stories to be found on a daily basis. And I'm not talking Chargers and Padres. Having been to San Diego, its residents strike me as being among the most physically fit, athletic, and sports-minded people I have ever seen.

Who is this ND to tell me otherwise?

But Randy, that's exactly what most sportscasts in this country are. There are a relative few very good sports departments that cover sports in their communities, but there are many more bad sports departments that are only interested in doing their jobs during football season, then rehashing crap from the feeds the rest of the year. Yours may be one of the former, but I remember as a news employee going out and covering soccer, high school sports and amateur sports for the news portion of the newscast because the sports department simply wouldn't do it. I actually had a sports director once tell me he wasn't interested in a local tennis tournament because tennis isn't sports.

And it isn't just a matter of the ND telling the sports director to do more local sports and stop running crap off the feeds. I've seen that attempted at two different stations. Both times it resulted in the SD being pissed off that the ND was intruding upon his authority and telling him how to run his sportscast. In both cases the SD grudgingly complied for a couple of weeks, then went right back to lazily pulling his cast off the feeds.

I sincerely wish you had worked at our place, Spike. Sounds like you have worked with some Sports Departments that deserved to be gassed. I fully acknowledge that they do exist everywhere. Trust me, within a matter of seconds I can usually recognize a sportscaster who is simply mailing it in.

Last night, I watched a guy (in an unnamed market) show highlites of that day's Mets-Reds and Nationals-Braves games. His market is nowhere close to New York, Cincinnati, Washington or Atlanta. Yet these VO's chewed up close to 1:15 of a 4:00-minute cast. It was a complete waste of valuable local airtime. It was lazy. Had I been that guy's SD or ND, I would likely have called him on it.

I've discovered that teevee sportscasts are like anything else. They can range from excellent-to-awful. Hopefully, the former are generating ratings and revenue. I suspect the latter generate hash marks and (espy in the present economy) a GM who wonders, "Why are we paying these people?"

I simply feel our industry would make a big mistake if we begin painting the value of all local sportscasts with the same brush.

And I sense that, in certain circles, such a disservice is already happening.

RPS
randy@medialine.com

[sportzchick]

I never like to get involved in these, "Stations should just drop sports" arguments. But I'll make an exception this time, because a couple of comments made by Rich Goldner, the Sandy Eggo ND, really tick me off.

"You (the viewer) are not going to miss anything," he said. In effect, he's telling all the viewers in his market, "If we don't show it, it's not important."

Wow, what a blantant disregard for his audience.

I'm reminded of a local all-news radio station in our market which recently ran promos trumpeting, "If you didn't hear it, it didn't happen."

That's a pretty impressive statement. I suppose if a local company lays everyone off - and forementioned radio station doesn't cover it - those newly-unemployed people can take heart in knowing that their jobs apparently weren't very important anyway.

A local station "can't do highlights like ESPN can," Goldner said.

Newsflash: Nor should it. Nor would it want to. Let me tell you something. If his station's Sports Department was doing a mini wannabe version of ESPN, he wasn't giving them proper direction to begin with.

I find it fascinating that his station still plans to cover stories like Mike Vick and Brett Favre. I'm not aware of Vick or Favre having strong ties to Southern California...and viewers there can certainly get their fill of those stories from sources like ESPN. (For the record, the Vick and Favre stories have never been mentioned on any of my sportscasts in the past year. Seriously.)

I've been in this industry for 29 years, the last 27 in sports (in both radio and teevee). For 17 of those years, I have been a SD. I'll admit that I'm still learning something new about this biz every week. But I think I have developed a pretty good idea of what our viewers want and expect.

I became SD at my current regional network affiliate shop in 1997, after eight years of working up the ladder. When I first arrived, we were a five-person department with dominant ratings, covering the same pro sports our shop had covered for 40 years.

By 1997, we were still #1. But with a much tighter budget - and a department which attrition had reduced to 2.5 people - we literally had to re-invent ourselves overnight.

Instead of relying soley on the same old, tired sports highlights and cliche-riddled SOT's everyone else was showing, we began story-telling. We began working the phones and building contacts. We began digging for local stories nobody else had told yet. We stopped reading the local papers. We made a real effort to become (*gasp*) journalists.

Suddenly, we had viewers occasionally complimenting us with comments like, "I don't like watching sports, but I enjoy watching you guys." Or, "Your sports is the best local part of the whole newscast." People noticed.

These days, a perfect cast for us is one which is 100% full of regional content which ESPN would probably never show. And, quite often, we are able to accomplish it. My Friday night cast shared only about 30 seconds in common with ESPN. (A Greg Norman putt. Sergio Garcia missing a 10-inch putt. Two home runs from our local Major League Baseball team's loss.)

The rest of our Friday sportscast was all local. But we had to work for it.

It meant we broke the story of a local woman, a pole vaulter, who had to pull out of next month's Beijing Olympics because of a knee injury. She came to us to describe the anguish of seeing four years of hard work go down the drain.

It meant working the phones to get results of some local athletes at final pre-Olympic tune-up events. And some others who were representing our area at national championships.

It meant rolling on seven hours of the British Open - just so we made sure we had the key shots of a local golfer triple-bogeying his way out of contention in round three.

It meant getting a camera out to two non-televised local sports events, which drew thousands of spectators. (Incidentally, both results were ignored by the local all-news radio station, meaning all those people attended games which apparently "didn't happen.")

I'm not saying any of these stories changed the world. I'm not that naive. But they did show our audience that we sincerely care about what goes on in the region they call home. Hopefully we gave each of those people reason to believe that we'll try to do the same for them again... tomorrow.

In my opinion, that's how you build (and maintain) viewer loyalty. It sure doesn't happen overnight.

And it definitely doesn't happen by telling members of your potential audience, "Go away. But come back on those days we decide you're important."

RPS
Dang I would have loved to work with you Randy. I might still be in sports if I worked with someone with your spirit.
I remember pitching my desire to really "cover" HS sports as they seemed to be the only ones who really appreciated the coverage and I knew it was a big void in our area (minus HS football). And by cover i mean find the truly interesting stories...not just show highlights. I pitched it to my SD and ND and got the brush off.
Some of my favorite or most memorable stories that I packaged are those on the local HS level or the non-traditional stories. Those were always the stories that drew comments from the viewers.

[Sultanosurf]

Obviously one of the most informed and contained discussions on sports that we've had, but I'm still not sold. Rarely does a local department have the staff and devotion to cover local sports like Randy's talking about. And if they do, they're still doing whatever ACC or WAC team is within 100 miles instead of anything the viewer actually participates in. Which leaves you with police blotter and recruiting blather. (And I oughta know, after doing sports myself)

And again, it's devoting a section of your cast to a subject that appeals to far less than half your viewing audience. Sheesh, even lotto numbers have wider appeal.

If we'd just admit it, that local sports is part of community placement, kind of like charity bake sales, fill-the-boot fire department drives or whatever, I guess I could be satisfied. But right now, it's too subjective. Sports guys are still trying to tell us that it's the same as news. Well, it just ain't, since the idea is still a 'broad'cast, not increasingly 'narrow'cast.

Randy, you're right, in every community in America there are healthy people who are into sports, but you sure won't see 'em on the local cast. With more leisure time than ever, far more people run, race bikes, play tennis or league sports (Even soccer, god forbid) and even kayak, ski or whatever than ever before, but all we get is yet another happy wrap from Biff on Coach's golf tournament, the chances on landing that inside 'backer, or whatever he's been busted for three years later.

And if you're trying to tell me it's truly objective, kinda like what's expected in news, name the last time you saw your sports department doing a live shot from the local university's tennis, soccer, or swim regional? Hell, no, Coach has a new bar-b-que sauce out!!

[southwesternguy]

Obviously one of the most informed and contained discussions on sports that we've had, but I'm still not sold. Rarely does a local department have the staff and devotion to cover local sports like Randy's talking about. And if they do, they're still doing whatever ACC or WAC team is within 100 miles instead of anything the viewer actually participates in. Which leaves you with police blotter and recruiting blather. (And I oughta know, after doing sports myself)

And again, it's devoting a section of your cast to a subject that appeals to far less than half your viewing audience. Sheesh, even lotto numbers have wider appeal.

If we'd just admit it, that local sports is part of community placement, kind of like charity bake sales, fill-the-boot fire department drives or whatever, I guess I could be satisfied. But right now, it's too subjective. Sports guys are still trying to tell us that it's the same as news. Well, it just ain't, since the idea is still a 'broad'cast, not increasingly 'narrow'cast.

Randy, you're right, in every community in America there are healthy people who are into sports, but you sure won't see 'em on the local cast. With more leisure time than ever, far more people run, race bikes, play tennis or league sports (Even soccer, god forbid) and even kayak, ski or whatever than ever before, but all we get is yet another happy wrap from Biff on Coach's golf tournament, the chances on landing that inside 'backer, or whatever he's been busted for three years later.

And if you're trying to tell me it's truly objective, kinda like what's expected in news, name the last time you saw your sports department doing a live shot from the local university's tennis, soccer, or swim regional? Hell, no, Coach has a new bar-b-que sauce out!!

Just because people are out at the park roller blading, or water skiing on the lake doesn't mean they'd like to turn on the tv and watch other people doing it. What's the point of saying that people have a lot of liesure time in America? Should sports reporters spend their time and resources to go out and cover people on their evening jog?

We'd all do live shots from tennis, soccer, or swimming at the local university if there's a good STORY to be told. Covering it for the sake of being local is not smart. It's why we don't see the news covering the local church bake sale....UNLESS....there's a good story behind it.

Heres a question, say you're in a market like....Savannah. Do fill the final :30 of a sportscast with Braves highlights or a Savannah State U. tennis match?

This is assuming the rest of your sportscast is all local.

[NotImpressed]

I doubt it will stop the rant-a-thon, but the SD station isn't really killing sports. It's a startup operation. So they aren't taking out a formerly functioning part of the cast, they are rethinking the way they do things.

Which brings up a better question: if you were doing a startup, would you do things exactly like every other station? Or would you do things differently?

[spts]

QUESTION.......

if it is so logical that this San Diego station is dropping sports......

why doesn't WTHR in Indianapolis drop sports????? (they have 2 sports shooters, 4 on-air people and a sports producer) why doesn't KUSA in Denver drop sports???

until a top notch, respected station out of nowhere drops sports.....this point is MUTE.

bad stations are doing it to save money (but instead of admitting that, they LIE to the viewers and give it another spin)

anyone with an answer to those questions....feel free to reply.

[sufferingseattlesportsfan]

Agree with SPTS completely on the last post...also SPIKE, not trying to bring down a news story or the dept. (ex: counsel meeting), just trying to emphasize reality that there IS a niche for sports in local markets if done right...translation LOCAL games (especially key matchups) and of course features!

[Sultanosurf]

So Coach Bubba's new bar-b-que sauce is a good story? Or the latest arrest of your second string inside linebacker?

C'mon, if you were going to justify sports, tell why you don't cover youth soccer. Or tennis. Or local baseball. Or god forbid pro hockey. Any of the three previous posters can try tackling that question.

I haven't really heard the convincing argument why local stations should continue to devote time to sports, even from Randy, unless it's part of the old formula, but I'd guess it's mostly because sales departments can continue to billboard and sell the segment.

The point is hardly MUTE (Sic) it's part of a general analysis people working on the local scene need if we continue relevancy. It's part of the greater balance we all need, since we sure as hell don't cover council meetings like we probably should, either.

Of course it's touchy, because it could mean some of your jobs. But unless it IS for the sold segment attraction, how else do you justify a portion of your cast that's arguably a borderline tune-out for more than half your target audience?

[spts]

SULTAN...

the question is NOT how do WE justify it..... the question is WHY do nearly 100% of solid news departments justify it....because they DO justify it. they do sports on a regular basis.

every time one crappy station cans sports.... news people come on here asking how we sports types justify this and justify that....when in reality....it's only a few BAD stations that are dropping sports.

now..if you wanna talk about how we cover sports....thats fine.. you bring up a great point about council meetings and how news people cover them.

i would welcome a thread about how to properly cover sports that doesn't include news types coming on and saying "sports is dead" "why justify it".

hope that makes sense.

[Sultanosurf]

they DO justify it. they do sports on a regular basis.

Oh, I get it, we all have guy/gal anchor teams, and we all do weather and sports hits and just about the same slot in the half hour. That doesn't prove its worth; doesn't explain why most casts ignore the multitude of sports for the big three or even two; and why you're still justified in a segment that's a tuneout for over half the viewing audience.

If you're in a market with a comparable cable sports outlet, tell us why your cast deserves two-thirty to three unless its a sponsored segment or 'everybody else does it.'

[southwesternguy]

As many have pointed out here, not too many #1 or #2 stations in any market have dumped sports. When some low-rated, low-revenue station drops sports, news people come on here and have a field day with that smug "I told you so" attitude.

Sports departments are like a luxury items. We'll have them as long as we can afford them. Once you start drowning in debt, you gotta find a way to cut something. Sports is usually first on the list. Doesn't mean it's not important, it's just the first thing to go. If I get laid off, and the money's not coming in, maybe I won't subscribe to sattelite TV, and order 10 pay-per-view movies this month. I don't need to justify it if I can afford it. I just like it and I want to have it.

The thing is, if you have a good sports department, it actually MAKES YOU MONEY!!! Sounds like a win-win to me. Aren't newsrooms moneymaking operations after all? I had a sales guy in a market I used to work in show me how much money we made on our "Friday Night Blitz" show. It was astounding. It was almost THREE TIMES the combined salaries for our 3 person department, and it sold out very quickly every year.

If the sports dept. is making great money, does it really matter how? As long as they're not abusing the public airways, what's the problem? Why does everyone get so fired up about it?

What if we did a whole 4-minute block of MLB highlights, sold it, and called it "The McDonals...This Week in the Majors", and we showed highlights from all around the country? What if the 30-minute show got great ratings and made a lot of money?

Would that be OK?

[Spike]

the question is NOT how do WE justify it..... the question is WHY do nearly 100% of solid news departments justify it....because they DO justify it. they do sports on a regular basis.

Why do they do it?

There was once a group of scientists who wanted to study behavior in chimps. They hung a banana from the center of an enclosure. Then they put five chimps in there with the banana. Immediately the chimps started jumping for the banana. The researchers sprayed them with hoses. Whenever any one of the chimps would try to get the banana, the researchers would spray all the chimps with water. The chimps quickly learned not to try to get the banana.

Then one of the chimps was removed, and a new chimp was put into the enclosure in his place. That chimp saw the banana and immediately went for it. Not wanting to get sprayed, the other chimps attacked the new chimp and beat the hell out of him. The new chimp learned quickly not to try to get the banana.

Another of the original chimps was removed and replaced. This new chimp also went for the banana. The other chimps attacked him. Even the last chimp, who had never been sprayed with the hose, joined in the beating. The new chimp learned quickly not to try to get the banana.

Another chimp was replaced, and a familiar pattern emerged: beating, then learning not to try for the banana. Another was replaced. Same pattern.

Finally all the chimps had been replaced, so that none of the chimps in the cage had ever been sprayed. Yet none of them tried to get the banana.

Why?

Because "that's the way we've always done it around here."

Sports departments are like a luxury items. We'll have them as long as we can afford them. Once you start drowning in debt, you gotta find a way to cut something. Sports is usually first on the list. Doesn't mean it's not important, it's just the first thing to go. If I get laid off, and the money's not coming in, maybe I won't subscribe to sattelite TV, and order 10 pay-per-view movies this month. I don't need to justify it if I can afford it. I just like it and I want to have it.

The thing is, if you have a good sports department, it actually MAKES YOU MONEY!!! Sounds like a win-win to me.

Excellent summation of the mechanism at work here.

[Randy Steinman]

So Coach Bubba's new bar-b-que sauce is a good story? Or the latest arrest of your second string inside linebacker?

C'mon, if you were going to justify sports, tell why you don't cover youth soccer. Or tennis. Or local baseball. Or god forbid pro hockey. Any of the three previous posters can try tackling that question.

I haven't really heard the convincing argument why local stations should continue to devote time to sports, even from Randy, unless it's part of the old formula, but I'd guess it's mostly because sales departments can continue to billboard and sell the segment.

The point is hardly MUTE (Sic) it's part of a general analysis people working on the local scene need if we continue relevancy. It's part of the greater balance we all need, since we sure as hell don't cover council meetings like we probably should, either.

Of course it's touchy, because it could mean some of your jobs. But unless it IS for the sold segment attraction, how else do you justify a portion of your cast that's arguably a borderline tune-out for more than half your target audience?


I'll volunteer to give this one more shot. After that, I'm gonna have to wave a white flag on this topic, gang.

I am, after all, on vacation this week. ;)

Bubba's BBQ sauce? No.

The arrest of the 2nd-string LB? No. (Although something tells me someone from our news assignment desk would come running with arms waving, wanting to know if we have file of the guy. :doh:)

Obviously, we're never gonna say, "Hey, there's a random roller-blader! Let's do a story on her!" Or, "Wow! Two guys are in the park throwing a frisbee! Let's profile them!"

But, since you mentioned them, we do find decent stories on cyclists, soccer, swimming, tennis and (non-MLB) baseball. Lots of them. Mind you, we have to dig for 'em.

In the past week alone:

- We profiled a local cyclist named Leigh Hobson. Feel free to Google her. She's trained by her husband, as he rides beside her on his Vespa. She'll compete in her final race at the Olympics next month... on her 38th birthday.

- We profiled a 16-year-old striker playing for our local Major League Soccer team, Toronto FC. His name is Ibee Ibrahim. Born in Ethiopia -- and still too young to drive by himelf -- he scored a goal in his MLS debut this month.

- We had video and reax (from an affiliate) of a local swimmer named Julia Wilkinson winning two gold medals at the National Championships. She set a national record in one event. She is a strong local contender for a medal in Beijing.

- We did a live shot from a local tennis club as it hosted a $25,000 grass-roots international tournament. Six years ago, the event was won by a young unknown by Maria Sharapova. This week, we're also doing extensive coverage from a local men's tournament featuring a couple of guys named Federer and Nadal.

- We were there both nights when our National Women's Softball team hosted a pre-Olympic tune-up against Japan and Australia. The round-robin event drew crowds of close to 5,000 each day. Organizers credited much of that to our pre-tournament advancer a few nights earlier.

As always, we stayed true to what we do best. Simple facts. Meat and potatoes. We don't use mind-numbing stats or flowery cliches. We don't over-dramatize and we don't insult anyone's intelligence.

Five pretty strong local sports stories in one week - in events you had specifically asked about. And the ESPN's of the world had zero interest in any of them. Which suits us just fine.

Which begs the question: "Why cover them? Nobody cares about sports anyway." Hell, we can make the argument that everything is a borderline tune-out for half the audience. I'm not sure that a VO of a non-injury fender-bender is spiking the viewership. Yet I still see them all the time.

So why do we cover sports the way we do?

So that next month, when a Julia Wilkinson medals at the Olympics, our viewers won't have to say, "Hrrmmph. Never heard of her."

Instead, they might even make the effort to gather up their kids and watch her compete live, being well-informed enough to know that she once swam at the same local pools they do.

Or, perhaps not. (I'll be the first to admit there's plenty of apathy out there.)

Someone mentioned sales being able to sell the sports segment. Sure, that's a big part of it. Let's not kid ourselves here: the bottom line controls pretty much everything. And if nobody's watchin' it... ain't nobody sellin' it.

But since we're on the topic... two or three times a day, I forward requests for dubs of our sports stories to our Operations Dept. They charge $75 a dub to VHS or DVD. I'm no math wiz, but hmmmmmmm.

Like a terrific old college prof once told us, "To ensure that they keep you around, always be worth twice what they're paying you."

I'm done, folks. The bottom line is that local sports on your newscast is like anything else. Your viewers will only get as much out of it... as what you're willing to put into it.

If your sports people are simply mailing it in, then shame on them. Feel free to blow it up and start over. Seriously.

But don't ever try to convince me that a proud, reputable, hard-working Sports Department cannot contribute positively to the success of a winning newscast.

RPS
randy@medialine.com

[southwesternguy]

I'll volunteer to give this one more shot. After that, I'm gonna have to wave a white flag on this topic, gang.

I am, after all, on vacation this week. ;)

Bubba's BBQ sauce? No.

The arrest of the 2nd-string LB? No. (Although something tells me someone from our news assignment desk would come running with arms waving, wanting to know if we have file of the guy. :doh:)

Obviously, we're never gonna say, "Hey, there's a random roller-blader! Let's do a story on her!" Or, "Wow! Two guys are in the park throwing a frisbee! Let's profile them!"

But, since you mentioned them, we do find decent stories on cyclists, soccer, swimming, tennis and (non-MLB) baseball. Lots of them. Mind you, we have to dig for 'em.

In the past week alone:

- We profiled a local cyclist named Leigh Hobson. Feel free to Google her. She's trained by her husband, as he rides beside her on his Vespa. She'll compete in her final race at the Olympics next month... on her 38th birthday.

- We profiled a 16-year-old striker playing for our local Major League Soccer team, Toronto FC. His name is Ibee Ibrahim. Born in Ethiopia -- and still too young to drive by himelf -- he scored a goal in his MLS debut this month.

- We had video and reax (from an affiliate) of a local swimmer named Julia Wilkinson winning two gold medals at the National Championships. She set a national record in one event. She is a strong local contender for a medal in Beijing.

- We did a live shot from a local tennis club as it hosted a $25,000 grass-roots international tournament. Six years ago, the event was won by a young unknown by Maria Sharapova. This week, we're also doing extensive coverage from a local men's tournament featuring a couple of guys named Federer and Nadal.

- We were there both nights when our National Women's Softball team hosted a pre-Olympic tune-up against Japan and Australia. The round-robin event drew crowds of close to 5,000 each day. Organizers credited much of that to our pre-tournament advancer a few nights earlier.

As always, we stayed true to what we do best. Simple facts. Meat and potatoes. We don't use mind-numbing stats or flowery cliches. We don't over-dramatize and we don't insult anyone's intelligence.

Five pretty strong local sports stories in one week - in events you had specifically asked about. And the ESPN's of the world had zero interest in any of them. Which suits us just fine.

Which begs the question: "Why cover them? Nobody cares about sports anyway." Hell, we can make the argument that everything is a borderline tune-out for half the audience. I'm not sure that a VO of a non-injury fender-bender is spiking the viewership. Yet I still see them all the time.

So why do we cover sports the way we do?

So that next month, when a Julia Wilkinson medals at the Olympics, our viewers won't have to say, "Hrrmmph. Never heard of her."

Instead, they might even make the effort to gather up their kids and watch her compete live, being well-informed enough to know that she once swam at the same local pools they do.

Or, perhaps not. (I'll be the first to admit there's plenty of apathy out there.)

Someone mentioned sales being able to sell the sports segment. Sure, that's a big part of it. Let's not kid ourselves here: the bottom line controls pretty much everything. And if nobody's watchin' it... ain't nobody sellin' it.

But since we're on the topic... two or three times a day, I forward requests for dubs of our sports stories to our Operations Dept. They charge $75 a dub to VHS or DVD. I'm no math wiz, but hmmmmmmm.

Like a terrific old college prof once told us, "To ensure that they keep you around, always be worth twice what they're paying you."

I'm done, folks. The bottom line is that local sports on your newscast is like anything else. Your viewers will only get as much out of it... as what you're willing to put into it.

If your sports people are simply mailing it in, then shame on them. Feel free to blow it up and start over. Seriously.

But don't ever try to convince me that a proud, reputable, hard-working Sports Department cannot contribute positively to the success of a winning newscast.

RPS
randy@medialine.com

That is truly BRILLIANT stuff!

[Sultanosurf]

Yeah, good stuff, but unfortunately, not the way it's done in 95% of local sports shops. (Have a great vacation! At least you'll be coming back to a gig. Don't forget that bottle of Coach Bubba's hickory, toss in a little Molson's for balance)

As we all agree, the real reason sports is still around is the paid-programming element of the dollars it raises (Funny, you don't see much jocktalk on PBS) and base force of habit.

But just once, it'd be nice to see some innovation in our business, and not just at Southwestern's "low-rated, low-revenue station." Far from being "smug" I'm just tired of seeing the same old business plan. Wouldn't it be nice to see a little Mac thinking in our gray PC world? My kids and their friends just don't fit into our old formula. And until somebody advances thinking outside the box, we can count on more erosion in the viewer base. Or more McDonald's sponsorship creeping into the news realm.

[spts]

Sultan....

i completely agree with that you just said.

it just seems like the only time people mention re-inventing the wheel is in the thread discussing sports.

my news department is tired and stale. our sports department has a major sponsorship....so i am not worried one bit about my job or the future of sports at my station.

i am worried that "chimp/monkey" way that our news department is operating...wil ultimately keep our ship from sailing very far.

we ALL need to change with the times....because not only in numbers...but in total feel for what people out there are saying....everyone seems to be watching less local news.

[southwesternguy]

Sultan....

i completely agree with that you just said.

it just seems like the only time people mention re-inventing the wheel is in the thread discussing sports.

my news department is tired and stale. our sports department has a major sponsorship....so i am not worried one bit about my job or the future of sports at my station.

i am worried that "chimp/monkey" way that our news department is operating...wil ultimately keep our ship from sailing very far.

we ALL need to change with the times....because not only in numbers...but in total feel for what people out there are saying....everyone seems to be watching less local news.

Sports is the "toy department" in most newsrooms. It's the place to tinker and play and adjust. It's not a "real" dept. in most places, just there to help bring in some money with their heavily sponsored friday night football/basketball shows, and their sunday night "Sports Final" shows.

I'd like to see someone try this:

Only do sports on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. Those are the days and nights that sports are actually happening anyway. Make it a high school show Friday, and "Sports Final" shows the other two nights. All shows would be 30 minutes.

The other days of the week, the sports guys would be out in the community turning features to be aired on the weekend, and working the phones trying to find other interesting angles, information, and stories. If the stories the guys find during the week have urgency, then they could do a live VO/SOT on the set on say, a tuesday night, with a promo for the weekend shows.

It would give sports guys more time to do stories. It would also allow a sports director to work the phone, and go out and talk to people without those 6 and 10/11 pm sportscasts bearing down on him all day. Also, we wouldn't have to have those silly middle-of-the-week VOSOT's from the local team (i.e. :40 Thur. night on how Clemson really hopes they can beat Virginia this saturday, taken from the coaches monday presser). I absolutely HATE that.

If I can ever get a job as sports director, I'll try to implement this format.

[Spike]

Only do sports on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. Those are the days and nights that sports are actually happening anyway. Make it a high school show Friday, and "Sports Final" shows the other two nights. All shows would be 30 minutes.

The other days of the week, the sports guys would be out in the community turning features to be aired on the weekend, and working the phones trying to find other interesting angles, information, and stories.

That sounds like an interesting approach. Here's your major problem:

Would the GM see the sports guys out in the field those other days? Nope. Many GMs came from sales and have absolutely no idea how television is actually made. All the GM will see is that those guys are on the air three days and think those are the only days they work. Then he'll wonder why they're being paid full time salaries for part time work.

[John M.]

This feeling of having to justify my existence is what drove me out of sports. I got tired of being treated as a drain on the news department rather than an asset. The way that the author Margaret Atwood explained her parents' reaction when she announced that she intended to be a writer takes little adapting to sum up many news directors' views.

"Their tolerance about catarpillars and beetles and other non-human life forms does not quite extend to sports reporters."

I deserved better.

When I was a sports director, the news director at the time forwarded me a memo from the corporate VP of news which floated the idea of cancelling regular sportscasts. The ND asked for my thoughts.

I replied that if you don't know why you do sportscasts or how to make them part of a ratings-winning newscast then you should not do them. Used properly, the sports segment is a taylor-made opportunity for a station to connect with its community and win viewers.

It doesn't take magic but it does require work.

You do it by writing stories rather than rehashing cliches. You tell stories that focus on the emotion behind the action and the person behind the athlete. There is no market where these stories do not exist. Viewers will respond. You can't think of the audience for that segment as consisting only of sports fans. Too many sports anchors narrow their possible audience by using jargon and statistics that tell people not hip to the lingo that "I'm not talking to you. You are excused." (Just like the people on CNBC do to me when I try to watch business news with my father.)

Storytelling works. So often I heard from people, "I don't like sports but I like watching you," that it earned a place in my cover letters. It helped that I was sometimes funny, though probably not as often as I attempted to be. Whatever it was that viewers liked, they couldn't get it from ESPN, they couldn't read it on the web and it was unavailable on their cell phones. They had to watch our TV channel to get it.

And you don't have to frighten away sports fans in the process. They can get the scores and stats instantly from numerous sources but the sights, sounds and stories of the games and those who play them can give people reasons to watch even if they already know the scores and headlines of the day.

The problem with storytelling -- in both news and sports -- is that it takes time; it takes resources; and it takes people with increasingly unusual skills to do it. This doesn't suit stations looking for ways to spend less on their news and sports departments.

That's one reason why weather is so loved by TV stations. Forget the so-called research. Most of that is obtained by asking leading questions designed to bring back pre-determined results. It's because weather is the cheapest part of the newscast to produce. Yes the initial outlay for equipment can cost a lot but once in place, a single person can operate it to fill weather segments for all your evening newscasts. Another person can handle all the morning and mid-day segments.

That's why stations are so hell-bent on getting you to tune in for the forecast. And why the actual forecast doesn't come until after the weather person exercises all of his or her bells and whistles.

The growing difficulty for stations is that weather technology is so far advanced and forecast information so available that the only way for a station to distinguish its weather segment from the myriad other sources is to be wrong!

One last point since it has been mentioned that cutting sports helps the budget-cutters. At most stations where I've worked, the sports department accounted for more time filling of newscasts per person than any news block except weather. Take away time allotted for sports, weather and commercials and look at how many producers, editors, reporters, photogs and anchors it takes to gather and present the news and you might see that sports department is not the budget drain you thought it was.

Unless you're just going to replace the sports hole with something you pull off a feed.

(Note: Because I don't work regularly in sports any more I am not motivated by job security fears. After I left the sports director gig mentioned above, I got a job reporting general news. Whatever the subject, it all comes down to telling someone's story. I have no worries about my ability to do that. No good sports reporter should.)

[John M.]

That sounds like an interesting approach. Here's your major problem:

Would the GM see the sports guys out in the field those other days? Nope. Many GMs came from sales and have absolutely no idea how television is actually made. All the GM will see is that those guys are on the air three days and think those are the only days they work. Then he'll wonder why they're being paid full time salaries for part time work.

No he won't. GMs might not understand how TV is made but most of them can do simple math. If the show has sponsors and makes money for the station, that's all he'll see.

Nevermind that many stations (though fewer than before) still have investigative reporters who appear on air far less often than three days a week and still manage to justify their jobs.

[adam & doctor drew]

Unless you're just going to replace the sports hole with something you pull off a feed.


which is exactly what they'll do.

all good points, John.
there's nothing I don't agree with.

the other option for sports guys is get to a FSN, ESPN or Comcast Sportsnet, where they actually do sports and you won't be banging your head into a brick wall every day

[Spike]

GMs might not understand how TV is made but most of them can do simple math.

Yah you keep believin'.

[southwesternguy]

But, I've noticed a few eye-opening hires in sports lately. I'm not saying I'm God's Gift to sportscasting or anything, but I have 8+ years experience, the last 5 of which have come in top 15 markets (including a top 5). I've been unemployed for the past four months after a layoff.

I've seen two stations hire weekend sports guys from markets 80-120 to do weekends in top 20 markets. Maybe I just suck, and don't realize it. Maybe they're trying to go cheap, since those guys in smaller markets probably made in the 30-40k range (I made over 100k).

I'm not jealous or bitter, just scratching my head as to why I can't find a gig. I'm only 36 with a full head of hair, so it's not like it's an age thing. It's just wierd to watch these low-paid, small market types zoom past you as if you don't exist.

[Sultanosurf]

It's just dollars. You just need to refine your search to markets with larger staffs. Or be more adaptable. Heaven forbid, maybe consider news openings.

Good luck...

[depth of field]

i live in the South and down here HS football & baseball (and other sports) are HUGE to the viewer. yet, my last station is about to layoff the sports director who has been there since he was like 18. and they hired someone who has a knack for doing "featurey" crap, like a PKG on the pledge of allegiance (i hope the irony isn't lost on that last mention).

ND's are arrogant and they actually believe news really is 24/7......but it's not, especially in smaller markets. therefore, they dump sports to make way for a story that really isn't news. but with flashy graphics and sound effects they make you THINK it's news.

everyone wants to be CNN or FOX

[southwesternguy]

It's just dollars. You just need to refine your search to markets with larger staffs. Or be more adaptable. Heaven forbid, maybe consider news openings.

Good luck...

I've already cut a new demo with my agent to start submitting for news openings. I just have to face reality. The days of the highly paid weekend sports anchor are quickly coming to an end.

I'll happily jump to the news side and look at it as a new challenge and a new chapter.

[adam & doctor drew]

The days of the highly paid weekend sports anchor are quickly coming to an end.


I know of one top 20 station that doesn't even have one at all (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsteam/index.html).