The Sports Section Is Dead
Long live sports writing!
The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times announced major changes in the way they cover the world of sports in recent days, and some long-time scribes think the world will never be the same. At the Times, the paper is disbanding its sports desk, reassigning the reporters and columnists to other sections, while also more fully leveraging the content produced by The Athletic, the sports website the Times acquired for more $550 million in 2022. As part of the move, stories from The Athletic will appear in the print edition of the paper for the first time.1
The barbarians are truly inside the gates at the Times.
In an email distributed to the paper’s newsroom, Joe Kahn, executive editor and Monica Drake, deputy managing editor, called the changes “an evolution in how we cover sports … We plan to focus even more directly on distinctive, high-impact news and enterprise journalism about how sports intersect with money, power, politics and society at large … At the same time, we will scale back the newsroom’s coverage of games, players, teams and leagues.”
On the left coast, Los Angeles Times Sports Editor Iliana Limón Romero let loose with a similar announcement over the weekend:
The printed sports section will take on the look and feel of a daily sports magazine, with a different design showcasing our award-winning reporting and photography. Our new layout highlights our best, most ambitious sports journalism — distinctive work you cannot find anywhere else.
We are making this change to adapt to how readers follow news and sporting events each day while managing rising production costs. You no longer will see box scores, standings and traditional game stories, but those will be replaced by more innovative reporting, in-depth profiles, unique examinations of the way teams operate, investigations, our distinct columnists’ voices, elite photography and more.
Predictably, there was much gnashing of teeth.
While I don’t want to discount Mr. Ryan’s feelings, these changes feel long overdue. In a world where most sports fans check boxscores and recaps on smartphones, re-focusing newspaper coverage on higher value features only makes sense, especially when the economic rationale that undergirded the newspaper business model has long been smashed to bits by pixels. And while there will be fewer prestige opportunities for sports reporters in big time media, one can hardly make the argument that sports fans aren’t being served today better than ever before.
It’s been almost 30 years since I started my side hustle in sports writing when I wrote a column on fantasy sports for The Washington Times. My inspiration then was simple: when I read the newspaper every morning it was clear that editors only made space for a very narrow band of voices and opinions. Things needed to open up.
The sports section was no exception. Journalism was a guild and the content it produced reflected that. When I started my first blog, The Route 7 Dispatch, in 2000, I concluded that if I wanted to have my own say I was going to have to do it myself. And that spirit carried over to the original Off Wing Opinion in 2002.
When I look at the bylines over at The Athletic, there are a lot of names I recognize from the dawn of sports blogging. Perhaps everyone didn’t have the same motivations I did, but we had quite a bit in common. It feels right that they’ll get a chance to see their bylines in the print edition of the New York Times.
Congratulations to all of them. They deserve it.
Baseball writer Tyler Kepner has apparently been “exiled” to the National desk at the Times. It beats the heck out of getting laid off, that’s for sure.
A few thoughts about The Athletic:
1. They raided a lot of local papers (one place they weren't successful was DC, because the Post pays relatively well) and ramped up local coverage. They've since abandoned that.
2. A lot of their other hires were based on cronyism, and that included hiring some rank amateurs. I'm no snob when it comes to people who come in from a blogging background, but some of the hiring there was indefensible.
3. They "break" a ton of news. For a lot of that, give them credit. But breaking news is often based on access that leads to a lot of compromise. A lot of news organizations are criticized because of a perception that they shy away from certain stories because they need to maintain access, but then people forget that the scoops they treasure often come with strings attached as well. What stories aren't being told because a reporter needs to keep some sources happy?
Some of this is unavoidable, or it just happens. I found myself breaking news on occasion over the years just because someone took a liking to me for some reason. And if you have "access," you might as well make the most of it.
Ultimately, it's up to us as readers to support a variety of sources. If we all read nothing but The Athletic -- and I know some communities that are getting close to that -- we'd miss a whole lot of the picture.
Yeah ... really conflicted about this, even though I know I probably shouldn't be. Clearly it's a case of adapt or die, and as you say these changes are most likely long overdue. And not to mention ... it's kind of difficult to feel sorry for the NY or LA Times given how badly they have been managed recently.
But ... I'm an "old", so it's still difficult to see once-great institutions essentially disappear. Sports Monday in the NY Times, back in the day ... that was a big deal and a must-read. So there's some wistful nostalgia for a time gone by, while recognizing that time marches on.
I do miss Off Wing, though :-)