A Brief Commentary On Sportswriting

All right, it's time for me to get something off my chest that's been bugging me for a while. It's sort of born from all the Jay Mariotti shenannigans and sort of from Vinnie's delicious critique of Jason Whitlock.

Basically, it boils down to this: it is unfair and irresponsible for newspapers, ESPN and other news outlets to employ writers whose only real relevance is that they make outrageous claims and generate arguments about their work. Obviously, the reason that sportswriters do this is simple - it follows the theory that people will read their columns because "love 'em or hate 'em, you'll read 'em." This is stupid. If a writer's only merit is that he or she is able to make unsubstantiated claims that generate ill will toward him or herself, then they simply shouldn't be commenting on sports. Sportswriters, as people who should provide readers with a middle ground for perspective into the world of sports should be able to formulate arguments based on inside information, substantial research and above all, good sense.

Writers like Skip Bayless, Scoop Jackson, Jason Whitlock, Jay Mariotti and the rest should be held accountable for what is clearly subpar work, in terms of both skill and content. But above all, it is the responsibility of fans to ignore this trash and spend their time reading work with legitimate merit. Shocking claims, unsubstantiated arguments and inflammatory claims do not a sporswriter make.

Of course, the real problem is that oftentimes there isn't much available in the way of good sportswriting. But nevertheless, there are still some quality writers out there doing good work. Case in point: an awesome article by the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon about the death of Len Bias (it's from earlier this week, but it's really good so I thought I'd post it).

That's all for now, so excuse me while I get down off my high horse.