Why journalism often suffers during World Cup (and why South Africa 2010 might be better)

Also file under: Skewering the cliquish tenets of the mainstream media

Allow me, an officially accredited member of the mean ol' mainstream media for many, many years, to pull back the curtain on how journalism and sports can sometimes get drunk, hop in bed and create a little bastard child of a story for unwitting readers.

But do take heart, because I'm going to show you how this screwed up little situation is getting better – and how all ye good readers of domestic soccer stand to benefit. Initially, said benefit will occur at

I start this tale with a personal story from the 2006 World Cup, after an amazing night in Kaiserslautern. The United States, down to nine men against Italy’s 10, had just finished securing a 1-1 draw against the vaunted Azzurri – and quite heroically so. It really was something, as all good U.S. fans surely remember, the image of a bloody Brian McBride still indelibly etched, a worthy symbol of a scrappy and memorable match.

In the post-game media scrum -- a really silly place, by the way – one unnamed columnist of a major U.S. daily talked to Jimmy Conrad, who was among the heroes of the night. This columnist queried Conrad for several minutes and then, as their time was ending and Conrad was about to shuffle on to the next media inquisitor, this journalist did something I’ll never forget.

Remember, this writer had been sent to Germany for some 4-6 weeks on assignment. His newspaper was paying, literally, thousands of dollars to ferry him halfway around the world, to stay in fancy hotels, to pick up the tab for meals and probably tolerate a few souvenir beer steins hidden on the expense report. How did this journo reward the newspaper’s faith in his effort?

He took a long gander at the credential hanging around Conrad’s neck – the way some imbecilic rube from cubicle culture would take a long, naughty gaze at the admin’s cleavage. At this point the poorly prepared writer – get this – scribbled down the player’s name in his notepad! You see, he didn’t know which player he was talking to. This officially credentialed and presumably well-paid fellow didn’t bother to do enough research to know who’s who on the U.S. roster. Hell, there were only 23 of them!

So much for dutiful research. So much for core professionalism. Nice, huh?

Why so poorly prepped? Because he wasn't a soccer expert. He was, in newspaper parlance, a general columnist. In terms of soccer aptitude, he was right there with a newspaper subset known as the Olympic writer. They're not bad boys and girls -- but the way they treated the World Cup was frequently FUBAR.

Now, consider for a second that these ostensibly booming journalistic voices were among the men and women tasked with informing a rapt U.S. public about the behind-the-scenes goings on of U.S. Soccer at what, in many minds, is the only time that truly matters: a World Cup. (Yes, this also says a lot about the sad decline of the newspaper industry … but let’s stay on message for now.)

Your information during a World Cup was being filtered through some who wouldn’t know a touch line from a chorus line, someone who wouldn’t know Jimmy Conrad from Jimmy John the sandwich maker.

In theory, the big bears of sports journalism can gracefully layer in perspective, delivering viewpoints unseen by boots-on-the-ground beat writers who may be too close to the trees to write about the forest. The best general columnists absolutely do so. But too often, it just didn’t work this way in soccer. (These sports journalism do-alls are a dying breed, elbowed to the margins by the verging world of specialty journalists. For a little more on that, read this recent piece.)

So, how are things getting better in our soccer world? In two ways:

First, newspapers across the country are dying slow and agonizing deaths, so fewer and fewer people are paying attention to the words inside them. The opinions that once reverberated strongly now radiate weakly, the ripples shrinking at a brutal pace. In the big picture, it’s probably a necessary course correction, and this is a small example of how newspapers are getting what they deserve. Management too frequently treated World Cups as incentive packages for politically connected writers, i.e., the (over) valued general columnists and so-called Olympic writers.

(While I still say this is a necessary course correction in the big picture, in the micro picture I am truly sorry for some of my friends who remain in the industry – a few of whom continue to live in denial about a herd that is truly headed over the cliff.)

The more immediate effects for soccer fans, especially as it pertains to World Cup South Africa, is this:

I understand that fewer and fewer general columnists and "Olympic specialists" are applying for World Cup credentials. Believe me, this is a good thing. Probably a great thing.

(An increasingly sophisticated soccer audience in the States probably wouldn’t pay much attention to these increasingly irrelevant voices anyway; as readership habits continue to trend away from static print enterprises, better equipped and better prepared writers from the States and all points beyond are a mouse click away.)

There really are some good people among the ranks of general columnist and Olympic specialists of the U.S. media world. But this is a group that did soccer no favors through the years. Too many of them succumbed to the sorry tenets of groupthink. A few more did worse, treating their soccer assignments as paid vacations. Seriously.

Journalistic groupthink is certainly not limited to soccer grounds. I suspect it happens every single day in Washington, D.C., Hollywood and elsewhere. I just happen to have seen its destructive work in a soccer context, so that’s what I can address.

Here’s how it frequently went with this cliquish unit:

The group leaders of this unofficial alliance huddled up after a press conference, practice or match and decided what the story of the day would be. This occurred informally of course – my tale here is not one of conspiracy, rather just one of the imperfect human condition. Was that really the story of the day? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But because these guys and gals were influential voices in the U.S. media world, it became the story of the day. (Why were they influential? Because editors paid handsomely for their services and to send them around the world on assignment. Why did the editors spend lavishly on them and treat them referentially? Because they were among the most influential media voices, of course. See the circular logic at work there?)

Meanwhile, there were beat writers around who knew the soccer much better, who had better sources. But they were often, unintentionally, marginalized by this lame process. For instance, why weren’t more questions asked about Brad Friedel during certain moments of the 2002 World Cup, when perhaps he should have come and collected a couple of crosses that turned to calamity? Probably because the little clique tethered themselves and chased other targets, like poor ol’ Jeff Agoos, who certainly didn’t have a good tournament, but who may have gotten more than his share of tar and feathers when things went south. (The groupthink effect can be powerful. Even right now, some of you are asking, "What’s wrong with this Davis dude? Agoos was awful." But think just for a second about how you formed your opinion – probably by reading the words from some of the very same sources I’m referencing. I’m not saying they were totally wrong, I’m just pointing out that a more diverse range of opinions may have yielded different results. But again, let’s stay on point.)

This group of Olympic writers and general columnists is more comfortable within the more established U.S. sports. Generally, the members of this journalistic subset come from a time when soccer wasn’t as relevant. So they are better versed in the language of gymnastics, figure skating, cycling and such. Or, in some cases, they are far more comfortable in an NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball press box.

Of course, this is a highly respected group in many circles. They are seen as authorities. So they go cover soccer and, naturally, they must preside with authority and write with authority – even if they aren’t adequately equipped with a depth of knowledge on the topic. Deep in their bones, they know this. And they’d probably admit it over $12 well cocktails at the overpriced hotel bar. But in the tribal confines of the group dynamic, they can’t show weakness. Speak with authority, at all costs!

(Members of this subset are sometimes called "Ringheads" within journalism circles. Olympics. Rings. Get it?)

At any rate, they are subject to the same flawed group dynamics that undermine meetings, committees, organizations, etc., across the country every day. Essentially, the "leaders" speak, the followers nod … then they all decide where they’ll eat … just as soon as they can pound out their pieces and get the hell out of Dodge.

Again, there are some good people writing about Olympics and earning their keep as general sports columnists. The New York Times’ George Vecsey, for instance, is a hell of a fellow and a blue ribbon writer. But too many others are corrupted by poor attitudes. There are some that I’ll nod at and smile at inside the World Cup media centers, but I refuse to spend any time with.

Why? Because they show up pissed off. They bitch about being there. (It can be a tough assignment logistically, but still… ) All they want to do is get their damn story written and go … well, I’m not sure where they go. To eat. Again. I suppose.

And how best to accomplish their doctrine of "scribe and scram?" Get together, decide the story of the day, make sure it’s one that can be penned expeditiously and get on with it.

"I hear the schnitzel at this place near the Reichstag is the best in Berlin! It’s pricey, but let’s go anyway. And hurry."

In 2006, I know of good, hard-working writers who were literally awakened in the middle of the German night by alarmed editors. Why were the editors alarmed?

Alarmed Editor: "YOU missed the story of the day."

Writer: "Uh, what time is it?"

Alarmed Editor: "Never mind that. EVERY other paper is writing Story X. But you wrote story Y. Why?"

Of course, Story X wasn’t truly the better one. Not necessarily. It’s just that the editor was dutifully scrolling the news wires back home, looking for comparison pieces that were conceived by the … here’s the kicker … the media influencers.

See how that works? Now, the sleepy writer is sent scurrying to add his or her voice to the "story of the day." And probably told not to let that happen again! After all, the newspaper is spending a lot of money to send this reporter around the globe, right?

So, how does all this affect South Africa? Only a precious few of the "Ringheads" and general columnists have applied for credentials. That’s not surprising, considering that major U.S. dailies have slashed budgets to the bone. The net effect is that coverage that is likely to be more sparse, but better in quality. More often than not, reports and dispatches will come from people who know soccer the way Abercrombie knows Fitch, the way Ben knows Jerry. More voices and more diversity of opinion is theoretically a good thing. But in practice you weren’t getting that under the recent conditions, despite numbers that suggested you were.

At South Africa, you won’t have to suffer the journalistic equivalent of second-hand smoke from the group just looking for another stamp in the passport.

And that’s a very good thing.