The locker room is an office, not yours, but theirs…and in many ways, it’s their home as well…When reporters cram into that space, and remember, stay behind the line!, they need to remember there are rules….While it may not be high on the priority list, being interviewed is part of an athlete’s job description…Whether it’s “putting up” with reporters questions/non-questions, “Talk about that play” – ugh! or “What were you thinking when you hit that home run/scored that touchdown/ took that penalty”, a little respect goes a long way…
Not everything you see or have to write is going to be positive…that’s just part of the game…but be ready to stick to your guns…You always here that the athletes know you have a job to do and nothing will cause them to lose respect for you quicker than is take shots at them and then not be around to take their reaction…At the Boston University Sports Journalism Seminar Series this past week, the NFL Network’s Bert Breer summed it up perfectly: “It’s really bad to be the guy who kills them and doesn’t show up the next day.”…readers, viewers might like their favorite Page2 columnist and his opinions but it’s not fair when you don’t give the athlete his say…Major League Lacrosse star and two time World Lacrosse Gold Medalist Matt Streibel agrees, “If you’re gonna put something in print or on media, you gotta be able to stand by it.” …and many times that includes standing firm while the athlete vents…
Athletes know you have to be there, they may not always like it but they will accept you if you show them you can be honest, objective and fair…you expect them to answer your questions about why something happened…well, expect it in return…When an athlete says “How could you write/say that?”, he wants you to take responsibility no differently than you want him or her to…
Get in, get out, get the job done, move on, like the pro you are…
19 Comments
Brad Kasnet posted on October 19, 2010 at 10:04 pm
We’ve heard so much from journalists this semester and it’s good to hear much of what they have said affirmed by an athlete. Ask intelligent questions and show knowledge of the game, don’t ask the open-ended ‘tell me about’ or ‘what were you thinking’. Build relationships that aren’t always based on needing something. If you criticize someone, show up the next day.
Ultimately, the clear message was that there is a mutual respect between athletes and journalists that it’s important for both sides to maintain. It was a bit surprising to see a lacrosse player and a football journalist in so much agreement on many issues, but it was good to know that even if an athlete gives a bad answer in response to a tough question, they will at least respect that it was asked, and in Matt’s case, be self-aware enough to realize it was a bad answer.
It’s also probably worth noting that while Matt Streibel’s perspective was an interesting one, he doesn’t necessarily represent every athlete. An Ivy League educated, veteran lacrosse player is not going to have the same views on the media as an NFL rookie or a high school hockey player. That only underscores the importance of knowing and understanding your subjects, whoever they may be.
Adam Silvers posted on October 20, 2010 at 11:31 am
I agree with Brad in that it was nice to hear a professional athlete corroborate what we have been hearing all year from journalists. However, like Brad also said, Streibel is a Princeton-educated lacrosse player, not Pacman Jones, Clinton Portis, or Ochocinco. The dynamic between these high-profile and perhaps less educated and articulate athletes and the media is very different than the relationship Matt Streibel and other lacrosse players have with the media.
Like Streibel said, for the most part MLL is just happy to have media in the locker room at this point. Streibel and teammates make themselves available to the media because they are looking for some publicity for the sport of lacrosse in the United States.
With that said, I still think it’s universal that a journalist needs to be respectful of the locker room, ask the right questions, know what the hell they’re talking about, and for god’s sake show up the next day after burying an athlete or coach in the press.
This reminded me of an earlier seminar we had, when Sherrod Blakely told us about how he slammed the Pistons, and Corliss Williamson confronted him about it in the locker room the next day. Sherrod showed up took Williamsons comments and told him that he may not write nice stuff about the team but you better believe it’s true and he’s going to be there the next day to let you know its true and why he wrote what he wrote. This to me is journalism like it’s supposed to be. It’s not cowering down to big organizations and big names in order to get an exclusive interview, it’s also not writing negative garbage just to get some hits on a blog post when you know you won’t be in the locker room the next day to defend your words.
It’s working hard, cultivating relationships (even when it doesn’t immediately benefit you), getting the story right, and being ready to defend what you say or write word for word. In this world of online news and blogging the lines of what real journalism is have became extremely blurred, but true journalism exists and it has standards.
As long as those standards are upheld, the truth will be told.
Lia Poin posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I think Brad and Adam make a good point in saying that this seminar would have been very different had we had a different type of player speaking to us about the way athletes feel about the media. But I also think that, even in an articulate and intelligent manner, Matt Streibel expressed his frustration and short temper with the media when the media is not prepared. I think that Matt’s feelings and views mean a lot, since the MLL is practically begging for media attention. For him to say that he will be short with a journalist or not give the best answer because he’s offput by an unprepared journalist says a lot since he’s really trying to promote his sport. Imagine how a high profile athlete who doesn’t need the media promotion feels when he is asked a stupid question by the media. These athletes are trained how to deal with the media and many of them are taught that the media is the enemy. This makes our job 18 times more difficult.
What makes our job even harder is that teams are now trying to manage the media. Breer gave an example of the Patriots giving information sheets (injury reports, stats, etc) to their players and having them give them to the journalists they want to. The players now have the upper hand. They aren’t going to give that information to a journalist who has uncovered a story about them or who criticized him after a fumble last week. Also, the fact that ESPN Boston has an office in Gillette Stadium. What does this do to objectivity?
As the media coverage increases, I think that more and more teams are going to try to manage the media to try and protect themselves from the dangerous monster that they think the media is. This makes us have to be on top of our game that much more. We talk about this every week, but really all we can do to make a name for ourselves and be successful in this industry is being smart and being prepared. Whether we’re trying to prove ourselves to the skeptics that think journalists are all just pretty faces or to the players in the locker room who dislike the idea of us, being confident and smart and good at your job will get us further in this industry than anything else.
Jack Flagler posted on October 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
While I was also surprised that Bert Greer and Matt Streibel were on the same page often for guys involved in two different sports, there was one particular moment in which they didn’t agree that I think that can teach us a lot.
Bert said he prefers to be straightforward and direct when asking a player a negative question – “what happened on that play?” – whereas Matt prefers the journalist taking the approach of “I think you were intending to do this, so what went wrong?”
It all comes back to knowing the personality of the person you’re dealing with. If an athlete makes a mistake, he knows he’s going have to talk about it. With a guy like Matt who’s more level-headed and composed, showing a little knowledge of the game will get you more because at least he knows you were paying attention and took the time to craft a question.
But try that approach a volatile guy like Josh Beckett or Rasheed Wallace, and they’ll unload a flurry of f-bombs before you can finish your question. In that situation, just “explain what happened on that play?” would probably suffice.
But it’s not just the individual personalities that matters to a journalist going into the locker room, the mood, persona, and performance of a team matter as well.
Matt mentioned that he played on two teams with very different personalities and different talent levels in the MLL. His Philadelphia squad was a team of “badasses” that wanted to rout everyone they played. While in Chicago, the team was humble, hard-working and not nearly as successful.
When I asked Matt after class whether the change between those teams affected how he dealt with the media, I figured he’d say no. I thought he is who he is and as long as a reporter came with respectful and thoughtful questions he’d give the same answers.
Surprisingly, that wasn’t the case. Matt said he’d be much more willing to respond candidly to a negative question when he was winning and part of the more eccentric personalities in Phily than he would losing and playing with the more reserved guys in Chicago.
That doesn’t mean that a journalist has to avoid ask a losing team negative questions, but it does mean that he or she might want to think twice about how to craft it, and it comes back once again to the point that when you go into the locker room, you better do your homework and understand the athletes – and the team – you’ll be speaking to.
Matt Goisman posted on October 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Do your homework. It’s as simple as that. Learn the sport you’re reporting on, learn the team and its history, learn about the players. Don’t ask lame questions and expect not-lame answers. That’s the lesson, and it’s even more important than showing up when you slam a player (because of the people who show up the next day, some of them will ask dumb questions ON TOP of everything else).
Sports reporting has perhaps fallen quite a bit in recent years. I once saw footage of the press conference after the Green Bay Packers had won the “Ice Bowl” (1967 NFL Championship between Packers and Cowboys at Lambeau). A reporter asked Bart Starr, who was apparently the consummate professional with the press, about the team’s tendencies to use certain plays in certain situations. It was such a nuanced question that Starr responded “wow, you’re a heck of an analyst.” Now, we’re just left with “how did you feel when…”
Reporters who back up their writing with their presence can get away with just about anything. Professor Shorr told a story about Dan Shaughnessy writing that Mike Greenwell named his son Bo because he couldn’t spell “Bob.” Did Shaughnessy get screamed at the next day? Yes. But did he lose his job? Did it hurt his status as one of the preeminent sportswriters in Boston (whether you like him or not, everyone knows him and reads him)? No and no.
Brad and Adam made the point that Matt Striebel is a unique professional athlete because of his education and the MLL’s “solicitous” relationship with the media. Maybe, but not as much as you might think. Striebel talked about a lacrosse writer saying that if Striebel’s team didn’t win Worlds, they’d go down as one of the worst teams of all time. When they won, and he wanted to interview them, they told him to go “f” himself. Meanwhile, Brian Scalabrine chastises the media for picking the Lakers to win the 2008 NBA finals. Not so different after all, I’d say.
Bert Breer told us the Meriweather/Belichick story to illustrate his point that sports management will foment an adversarial relationship with the media because they think it will improve team chemistry. By asking bad questions and just going for the quick sound bite, we do nothing to prove them wrong.
Katie posted on October 20, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Like Brad, Matt and Leah all said, it was great to hear from a professional athlete about his perception of the media, since we’ve only heard from other reporters so far. And like they also said, a Major League Lacrosse player probably doesn’t have quite the same perception of the media as a baseball or football player would because they don’t normally get the same kind of coverage. But nevertheless, Matt Streibel and Bert Breer reiterated some of the same stuff we’ve been hearing over the course of this seminar–know your stuff–and for me, I never get tired of hearing it.
I’ll be honest, I had always thought “tell me what happened on this play” or “explain what happened when you did this” were decent questions. Not great, but not so bad to the point that it looks like you weren’t even watching the game. But now that I’ve heard from Matt and Bert and what they like to hear and ask, respectively, I feel like it’s that much easier to avoid generic questions and ask something really smart. Even when I was preparing to do locker room interviews over the weekend, I was thinking to myself, “don’t ask anything that starts with ‘tell me..'” and tried to form some questions that were more specific, which was even more difficult because it was the losing team that just got knocked out of the playoffs, and I knew they wouldn’t be in the mood to talk to me anyway.
But both speakers last week mentioned like others before how important it is to build a good relationship with the athletes and earn their trust. And what I got from them is that the foundation to earning an athelete’s trust starts with asking smart questions, showing you understand every aspect of what you’re writing, and that you’re not out to personally attack him. And really, it shouldn’t be that hard. But I think people either get complacent and don’t put enough time into their questions or writing, or they don’t know enough about the sport or the players and then need to get on top of their research or find another job. We don’t need those kind of people in our field losing players’ or teams’ trust and making a bad name for the rest of us.
Molly posted on October 20, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I also agree with everyone that is was great to hear about the media in the locker room from an athlete’s perspective. Like Katie said, while Major League Lacrosse hasn’t gained the same following as the MLB, NFL, NHL or NBA, it is important for all of us to hear the athlete’s thoughts on the media, and maybe take into consideration their perception of those extra people in their “office.” Matt Streibel’s comments regarding the league’s need to “kiss the media’s feet” were amusing, but all the same very true. For those sports that do not get the same coverage as the four major sports, it’s essential for its athletes to build solid relationships with those who can help them, their team and their league overall to gain fan base and popularity.
When Matt Streibel started to discuss those questions that frustrate him, I started to think how about a post-game interview is similar to a job interview. Would you walk into an interview with your potential employer without knowing about the company where you might potentially work? How about the person who will interview you? Like Matt Goisman said, do your homework. Familiarize yourself with the athlete you are going to interview, and know as much as you can about them before heading into the locker room.
I found it interesting that both Matt and Bert agreed that they key to a good athlete/reporter relationship is getting an athlete to talk to you as if you aren’t a member of the media. We’ve heard this one before: Shalise discussed the good relationships she’s been able to build with the Patriots, simply talking with them about their families and other things outside of football. Show them you care about them, not just as the athlete, but as the person underneath the helmet. After all, they are just trying to do their job, just like us.
Tristan Hobbes posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:17 pm
I hope talking to a player in the locker room is not like hitting on a girl at the bar because if that’s the case I am screwed. But in all seriousness, that is what it is like. You have to make it seem like you are not using the athlete for your own gains. It was mentioned that some athletes hate it when reporters steal the show. Our goal is to make these athletes feel as comfortable as they possibly can be.
Everyone so far has said all the right things. As reporters we must know what we are talking about and we must be able to ask questions that are more insightful than “talk about that play.” Because, like was said earlier, this is a competitive market and that includes the interactions with the players. These players, at some level, have to enjoy getting all the attention but they also are sick and tired of the same old boring questions they have to answer day in and day out.
In the end, however, athletes are being trained more and more these days that the media is the enemy. We are seen as intruders who are there for one purpose, to ruin everything. As players are run more and more by PR reps, the answers become more scripted and maybe even non-existent. That is why it so important to know the game but also to be able to hold a conversation about something other than the game. Not all interactions with athletes come in the locker room and these “outside” interactions are even more important.
Like Bert Breer said, when he’s on the road he’s not going to be at 8 like a good boy, he’s down at the bar taking in information and having normal conversations; building the relationship.
And I think it’s important to remember that you’re always there and to never back off what you have written if it is true and well thought out. Remember, it’s not like you’re riding on the Dallas Cowboys plane home.
Francis posted on October 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I also have to agree that it was great to hear from an athlete on how he views the media. It seems that all we’ve heard all semester long are stories about athletes confronting journalists in the locker room over stories they didn’t like. It’s good to know that there are some athletes who realize that journalists have jobs to do as well.
However, we still must know what we are talking about so these athletes and coaches will want to talk to us. We are already at somewhat of a disadvantage because some athletes think that because we may not have played the game at their level that we don’t know what we are talking about. If we do our homework and maybe play dumb and ask a player to explain something to us to make it seem as if we want to understand it more in-depth, I think athletes won’t have as hard of a time talking to us. They’ll also realize that we take our job seriously and aren’t just there for ourselves.
I thought it was interesting to hear Matt say that athletes think “What can this guy do for me?”. This could be a good and bad thing for journalists as athletes may be more willing to talk to reporters who have a large following on a large forum but may not give journalists from a small media outlet the time of day. This just makes that journalist from the small media outlet have to work that much harder to build a relationship with the athlete because they know they can’t just walk up to them and expect to be talked to.
Another thing Matt mentioned that I found interesting was journalists interviewing players as they are coming off the field. He told the story of how one of his “crazier” teammates would be better to talk to than him. I always think back to the journalist in Los Angeles who was interviewing Shaq on the court right after a tough game and Shaq gave him an expletive-filled answer to a question. Yes, you know a guy like Shaq will talk to you and give you a good quote, but sometimes, and in this case, guys like that can hurt you.
Angus Dunk posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:19 am
Asking the right questions to the athletes while at the same time demonstrating respect is one of the most difficult conflicts I’ve personally had to deal with as a journalist. I always know in my heart that my duty is to get the story and information out to the public, but at the same time one tries to abide by a code of ethics in which one doesn’t smother an athlete or the club he or she plays for. I don’t advocate for not asking the right questions, but I do warn my peers not to turn into Larry Brooks of the New York Post. Brooks is a longtime hockey columnist, who has covered the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils. Last season, I remember watching a YouTube video in which Rangers head coach John Tortorella dismissed question after question in a post-game conference by Brooks for previous antics. Athletes and coaches both need to be respected by the media. They will lash out if you try to impose your will or take power from them.
However, working for WTBU sports for the last year at BU, I’ve seen the flip side where reporters don’t ask enough questions, or aren’t “gutsy” enough in the locker room. I covered the men’s basketball team last season as a beat reporter and found myself in situations where I wished I had asked both more questions in addition to the ones that aren’t always easy to answer. Head coach Patrick Chambers enters the media room with his players and has a demeanor that could be used to intimidate reporters as opposed to welcoming them to ask questions. I noticed I wasn’t the only one who had problems asking the tough questions such as “How did you guys fall apart at the end?” There were reporters in their late 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s; I noticed who didn’t probe the difficult issues very well. The only reporter who stood out in my opinion was an America East men’s basketball reporter, named Sam Perkins, who asked Chambers and the players about controversial issues such as Corey Lowe’s dismissal from the team in the 2009-2010 season in a challenging, but respective way.
I remember our seminar with beat reporter Mike Muldoon, who said something along the lines of “you don’t want to be disrespectful, but at the same time you don’t to be a wimp.” Using my experience in college locker rooms as an example, I think this is a very good point for all of us to keep in the back of our heads. One has to draw a line between probing for information and restraining oneself to still be respectful of an athlete or coach. Either extreme is bad. Too much respect, and one ends up just complimenting the athlete the entire time and not getting the information he or she needs, but at the same time if one pries too much he or she becomes the “jackass” or “bitch.”
Building a good relationship as a reporter with a sports club or athlete is like anything else in that you have to moderate what you do and weigh the pros/cons of each decision you make, or each question you ask, constantly. Unless you’re dealing with NFL owners, such as Jerry Jones (as Bert told us about), who open the media with all arms to cover their teams, whether that coverage is positive or negative, knowing how to act around athletes and coaches in locker rooms, or on the field, takes a good deal of maturation and development of people skills. Bert said, “Get them to see you as a normal person,” which shows that many sports figures want to deal with a post-game setting in which he or she is having a conversation as opposed to a press conference.
Matt pointed out though in reality, you really have to go beyond just being seen as a normal person. He said, “You can’t underestimate how petty and sensitive athletes can be,” which we all were aware of about a week ago when wide receiver Randy Moss said, “I don’t think I’ve been appreciated,” prompting his trade from New England to Minnesota. Matt also pointed out that in establishing a relationship with an athlete that one has to “show you give a shit about me, ya gotta stand out.”
Overall, I believe as a sports journalist one has to know how to establish ties with his or her subject (even if it means pampering or doing a story that shows the subject in a good light the first time), develop a code of conduct for behaving in the environment of an athlete (be it the field, locker room, or elsewhere), and I think as Matt or Bert said, “Stand by what you say,” even it is controversial or is about an issue the athlete or coach may not want to discuss.
Angus Dunk posted on October 21, 2010 at 12:22 am
Last paragraph and sentence, I noticed there’s a typo. Between “even” and “it,” the word “if” should be inserted.
Joel posted on October 21, 2010 at 8:07 am
The relationship between the athlete and the reporter is a game of give and take. As we heard, athletes need the media to create buzz and promote their sport while the journalist obviously needs the athlete to get their job done and get their story in on deadline. I honestly believe that, just like any relationship in life, if you treat a person with respect, then you will not have many problems. Athletes defiantly understand that talking to the media is part of their job and if a reporter treats them with respect, then they are going to get an honest answer, most of the time.
Also, like any relationship, there is also a give and take factor. I liked when Bert said that he would respect an athlete’s wish to take back a statement, or even ask an athlete, “are you sure that’s what you meant?” Even though it’s not on the same level as Matt, I was approached by a Free Press reporter last year during the track and field equivalent of the Bean Pot. I ended up giving a quote that sounded like I was degrading our program at BU (even though it wasn’t my point), and it ran in the Free Press and even made the top 10 BU Athletic quotes at the end of the year. Now I am not saying that I don’t think the reporter should have gone with the quote, just like one of our earlier guests said (I think it was Sherrod), collegiate athletes on athletic scholarship are “fair game” due to the fact that we are getting “paid to play”. However, I definitely would have appreciated a second chance at clarifying my point, so that it wouldn’t have been taken out of context. Like I said, not even close to the same standard that someone like Matt has to deal with, but I thought of the experience during the seminar.
I agree with Lia that teams are going to start managing the media, but I don’t know if it’s going to be in a “Belichick-ian” sense. I think the way that teams and players will start controlling the media is simply by being more informed on how to deal with them. If a player is taught from college onward that you need to be careful about what you say and disclose to the media, by the time they get to the pros, they will already ready to deal with reporters and conditioned about what to give and what to hold back. I think that’s dangerous for reporters, because the real “good stuff” might be getting held back by an extra cautious athlete.
Ben posted on October 21, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I don’t think there is any right or wrong way to ask a question. I think what you ask and how you ask it depends on the situation and on the player your asking. There will be players who will answer you even if they don’t like the way you asked a question, and there will be players who will star you down or chew you out no matter how much you try and dress up a question. In the end, you just need to know what situation, and that goes back to gaining as much knowledge as you can about the team you’re covering.
I liked Matt, he had some great answers to questions, and surprised me overall. But I think we all need to keep in mind that as a lacrosse player, his perspective is probably different from many in the major sports because often he/the sport can’t afford to get on the wrong side of a reporter. But players in bigger sports don’t have to take that same position, so it definitely changes the dynamic of the relationship between athlete and reporter. Players are often taught that the media are enemies, or at the very least to beware. I’m sure that’s the attitude many of them will take when they see us coming into the locker room for the first time. But Bert mentioned in class the need to get to know players to the point where they feel comfortable around. Maybe after some time, how they look at you will change and that attitude toward you will disappear. I’m pretty sure its been said in at least half the discussions we’ve had, but always be prepared to own up to what your write or say.
It’s a difficult balance when dealing with athletes between asking the questions that need to be asked while at the same time avoid a situation that might damage your standing with a player. But Bert’s views on it should serve as a guide in dealing with athletes or anyone. As he said “your ultimate responsibility is to the truth.”
Chris posted on October 21, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Matt hit the nail on the head when he said do your homework. Know who you’re talking to ahead of time, know their tendencies, know their backgrounds, their stories and whatever else you can equip yourself before you throw yourself into that hormonally charged, testosterone-infused trench better known to us as the locker room.
The most important thing to consider, for me, is to stand by what you believe. With athletes being bigger, meaner, stronger and more pompous than ever before, with egos that can barely fit through the door, it’s easy for a new reporter to feel intimidated the first time they walk into locker room. But at the end of the day, you have a job to do. They just got done doing their job on the field, and they’re obligated to speak to us.
There is a perceived boundary that keeps athletes at a constant unease around us, we are the enemy, they are our prey. But look a little deeper and that’s not necessarily the case. Building relationships with athletes and coaches outside of the locker room and outside of the press room is key. Ask a player about something other than sports, for example, and let him/her know that you care about more than just the box scores and the X’s and O’s.
At the same time, it’s important to hold your ground and not be a pushover. Respect for the athlete/coach is one thing, but being submissive is another. I absolutely loved when Breer mentioned his colleague and the anecdote about how he stood tall to some of the Cowboys players. I loved it not just because of my allegiance with the Giants, but because he stood up for what he believed in, for what he wrote, and he was there when he was proven wrong, but he wasn’t daunted or embarrassed or make any retracting or apologetic statements. All the evidence pointed to Dallas losing that game, and it just so happened otherwise. That’s sports. It happens. Journalists and experts and panelists always get things wrongs. That’s why they’re “predictions.” The fact that he didn’t back down was both inspiring and pretty damn funny.
One last thing: Streibel was great for the seminar, but we should all keep in mind that the athletes you’re dealing with won’t always be as well-versed as him. Still, it was great to hear his point of view, and I was thrilled to know that the “Take us through that goal…” prompt upsets him just as much as it upsets us. The one thing I learned from him that I wouldn’t have known otherwise is the way athletes prefer questions to be worded when they know they performed poorly–i.e., the “it looks like you were trying to do this on this play, how did THAT happen…” That’s something I will definitely consider from here on out.
Jillian posted on October 21, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I think that I would have to vote this seminar as my favorite, or most helpful, so far this semester. It’s one thing to hear from fellow journalists and reporters on how to cover certain issues, but at the same time their advice could be seen as slightly biased – it’s only one side of the media-athlete relationship. That said, it was interesting to hear that Bert and Matt seemed to be on the same page with a great majority of their opinions and ideas.
Another reason this seminar was so interesting to me is because I actually spent the summer covering Major League Lacrosse and players such as Matt. It felt like I was getting instant feedback on the job I did from a perspective other than my supervisor’s. So many of the issues Matt touched on, were in fact things that I ended up learning or realizing along the way.
When I went to cover my first MLL game, I had limited knowledge of the sport and did rely a little on those “lame” questions. But the more homework I did and the more games I watched and the more I built my relationships with the players, the better my interviews got. I think the best piece of advice Matt had to offer in terms of this was to put some detail or fact or knowledge around your question. That shows respect to the athlete on multiple levels. It shows that you actually follow their sport and know a little about them, rather than just coming off as a ‘lazy’ reporter looking for a simple quote or sound bite. And it’s been said in multiple seminars already – if you show respect to the athlete, they will (in most cases) show respect to you. Bert addressed this point too when he said “be direct and don’t treat the guy like an idiot.”
I think a general guideline to follow on all of this is that it’s important to remember that, whether you are the athlete or the media, we are both people first. Both media and athletes have egos and emotions and opinions – but at the same time both have a job to do. Remember that “golden rule” we learned in kindergarten? “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” It applies completely in journalism situations such as these.
I honestly don’t think it made too much of a difference to the seminar that Matt plays professional lacrosse versus professional hockey or baseball. Okay, sure, his sport is a little more under the radar but he is still an athlete. He still knows and works with multiple other athletes. Just because it’s not ESPN or NFL Network reporters that he is dealing with every day, doesn’t mean there is no worthwhile coverage. Besides, it will probably be more small-scale athletes and situations, like Matt’s, that a lot of us start out working with. Again, it just goes to show that any athlete, at any level, deserves the same kind of respect including honest, objective, and fair coverage.
Jake Safane posted on October 21, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I think the “hitting on a girl at a bar” analogy by Bert Breer is the perfect simile for what it’s like to talk to players in a locker room. It can be nerve-wracking (the more attractive the girl, the higher profile of the athlete), but no matter who it is, you have to find an in, find a way to connect with the other person. Because whether it’s at a bar or a locker room, they no what you’re after. And the best way for the other person to receive your advances is to come off like you know what you’re doing and that you belong there.
Some athletes like Matt are respectful of the media, some like Chad OchoCinco use the media as a platform, and like Jack said, Josh Beckett and Rasheed Wallace are standoffish at best. So in order to get the job done, you have to know who you’re talking to, just as a writer needs to know his/her audience.
This year, I covered Hockey East Media Day for NESN. It was both exhilarating and frightening. Having never done interviews of this scope, especially for one of my weaker sports, was a big challenge. And while the players and coaches are more receptive on Media Day than in the locker room, I still picked up on some tricks easily. For BU players, I simply mentioned that I went to BU and chatted about that before interviewing them. For Lowell, I talked with the coach about growing up in NJ. And I saw from more experienced reporters that they would find any story they could…not everyone could talk to Jack Parker and Jerry York at first, so maybe there’s a feature lying with the Merrimack players. This is reminiscent of Jeff Howe’s point about not everyone can talk to Tom Brady, so he did a story on a practice squad guy.
Bottom line- do your homework, know your subjects and have confidence, and players will respect you for doing your job and give you the necessary material for a story.
Emily posted on October 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm
First of all, Tristan…In case it is like hitting on a girl at the bar, I will be your wingman.
In some of my news classes the teacher stressed the importance of getting great quotes from the subjects. In order to do that sometimes one has to “act dumb” so they get a little detail in the answers. This seems to be the exact opposite of what we heard from Bert and Matt. Matt said that athletes like to know that they are known, that the reporter knows something about the sport and the players. I agree with this completely. I think that athletes, more so than politicians or other news makers find it more difficult to expand upon something, especially a sport, one that they are likely to take very personally. It is always easier to expound upon something when the person you are talking to is educated on the subject.
That being said, it definitely is more difficult to be a sports reporter because the athlete is used to the team mentality: “It’s us against the world.” That mentality is the reason that they are being interviewed in the first place. Thus the give and take. Right now, social media is bursting, and players and teams are getting more and more media savvy. Whether they are marketing themselves or learning how to speak to the media, some athletes are understanding how to make the media work for them. So just like Jake said: homework needs to be done, and attention must be paid. Face to face communication will be where sports reporters have the advantage.
Laura posted on October 21, 2010 at 4:26 pm
There are not many jobs that you have to intrude on someone’s personal space like you do in the world of sports. Not many business meetings involve speaking with your associate while he is dressed in less than a towel. The point is to act as professional as possible given the circumstances.
That being said, I completely agree with Matt regarding knowing your stuff. If you can make your question interesting, knowledgeable, and out of the box, it seems atheletes will be more than willing to give a dynamic response. Streibel spoke about sabotaging interviews by making teammates say a phrase when they know the journalist is a dud, and it makes sense. Just like we think most athletes aren’t the coldest beers in the fridge, they can instantly lose respect for a journalist who shows up unprepared, and ultimately sounds stupid asking “what happened on that play.” If they make mistakes on the field, we’re all over them. So why shouldn’t they call us out for asking weak questions.
More importantly though, it seems that having a knowledge of the locker room and who you are talking to makes all the difference. You can ask the most intelligent and thought-provoking question, but if you’ve asked the clubhouse clown or the hothead, the answer might not be all that promising. Good journalists know who to get the dirt from (ask Sherroud explained a few weeks ago), and how to approach different players. Ray Allen and Rasheed Wallace aren’t exactly going to give the same sound byte after a loss.
We can even see it now with the current NFL helmet-to-helmet contact issue. You aren’t getting controversial quotes from running backs and wide receivers scrolling on the bottom of ESPN. It’s James Harrison, who is now “contemplating” retirement because of his fines, that’s going to give you the goods on the issue. Both Streible and Breer emphasized the need to know who you are talking to because, most of the time, asking the wrong person can be much worse than asking the wrong question.
I even remember as low a level as my varsity softball team having to handle the media when we reached the state tournament. We were doing well and had reporters following us, but none of us were all too excited or interested because it felt like, who is this person asking me quesitons about making an error if he/she hasn’t even been here all season.
For many players, it just takes one bad experience to shut down completely to the media, as Breer explained with Bellichick and his player meetings. As journalists, it’s our job to make interviews and questions players see as a mandatory downside to their jobs, into an interesting part that makes them look at the game from a different perspective. What I understood from both the player and journalist aspect of last week’s seminar, is if you are knowledgeable, well-versed, and have good intentions it is duly noted, respected, and rewarded by both sides.
Seth posted on October 21, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I completely agree with Jake’s point about the bar analogy. You need to find anything in common or use any device you can to make these guys or girls feel more comfortable around you and willing to talk to you. At America East Media Day last week I used a lot of the same tactics to make some of the coaches possibly reveal more to me. When I was able to talk to the coach from UMBC I emphasized the fact that I lived nearby and we talked about one of his star players that I grew up with. When I talked with the coaches from UNH and Hartford (both have Philly connections) I asked about the Phillies chances and where they like to visit when they go back. Having that connection I hope will enable me to possibly have those coaches give more thought to the questions they ask when I interview them again down the road.
Fran brought up a really interesting point when Matt said, “What can this guy do for me?” The idea that athletes are trying to use us for numerous reasons can really aid us in collecting information but there is a very fine line. I’ve covered the men’s basketball team at BU for the past three years and had to deal with a story about Corey Lowe, a guy that I had always been friendly with. I didn’t think that Lowe actually read my stuff but occasionally he would say something about a story I wrote when we passed on the street. The problem was when he was taken off the team’s roster at the end of the season last year he thought that my portrayal of the situation was completely unfair to him. He texted me in an angry, threatening fashion, demanding it be taken down and tried to bully my through a series of text messages. I flatly responded the only way I would take it down was if he gave me his side of the story; the only other option I gave him was that I would quote him saying that he disagreed with some of the facts of the story. While he never gave me the interview and my final story was not the full story, I at least earned his respect enough that the next time he passed me on the street he didn’t want to punch me in the face. Hearing Albert Breer and Sherrod Blakely talk about their own experiences shows me that this is common place and that its important to stand up and be accountable and straightforward.
Personally, I loved Matt but I think we haven’t been quite objective enough looking at who he is and at some of his comments. Matt’s sport is desperate for attention, and he more than almost any athlete in any other sport, can gain from media attention. Matt is trying to be a guy who can be fully dependent off lacrosse and that means getting his name out there as much as possible so that he can do commercials and advertising. Without media attention that’s not a possibility. He’s also a Princeton graduate-how many athletes make it big from the Ivies-I can think of only a handful off the top of my head, we’re not talking Miami or BC here. While I’m not trashing athletes intelligence, like any segment of the population, there are some very smart athletes, some very stupid and a nice mix in between-Matt’s not our typical athlete. Chris captured it perfectly when he called athletes “bigger, meaner, stronger and more pompous than ever before, with egos that can barely fit through the door.” The thought process that Matt goes through when answering the questions is probably a lot kinder (to the media) and more complicated than most athletes, at any level.
I agree with everyone else on the point about homework. Not only will doing you homework make you feel more prepared to ask questions, it will allow you feel more confident entering the locker room. That feeling that you are completely prepared will help you do your job and pick up on more of the things going on around you. The most interesting thing that I learned from the seminar was that homework doesn’t just involve: players, stats and strategy. Your preparation also must involve players personalities and tendencies. Knowing who to talk to about certain things (ala Brian Scalabrine or Ray Allen) and who to not approach will help you save face and hopefully gain the respect of the people you are going to have to come back to daily.