I suffer from perpetual mixed feelings about Canada’s highbrow general-interest magazine, The Walrus. Anything that moves money from investors to freelance writers is good news for the labour market I compete in, and the Walrus is the only venue of its kind right now. But did it really take 2,500+ words for this writer to say “Joe DiMaggio probably got a few breaks from the scorers during his 56-game hitting streak”? And why is this fact, which is not news to any serious baseball fan alive, being made the subject of such a mundane recitation now?
Comments (5)
Well, that begs the question...do they pay by the word?
Posted by Ty | September 15, 2007 7:06 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 19:06
Of course, but it's not the author's answer to the question that's a mystery, it's the editor's.
Posted by Colby Cosh | September 15, 2007 7:33 PM
Posted on September 15, 2007 19:33
"Reporters who covered the majors back then were not, by today’s measure, real journalists. They were almost like employees of the teams they covered."
Hmmm...
Posted by cjl | September 16, 2007 10:07 AM
Posted on September 16, 2007 10:07
"Reporters who covered the majors back then ere not, by today’s measure, real journalists. They were almost like employees of the teams they covered."
And this is different than sports journalism today ... how?
Posted by Mike Jenkinson | September 17, 2007 11:55 AM
Posted on September 17, 2007 11:55
"Reporters who covered the majors back then were not, by today’s measure, real journalists."
Well, I suppose that's okay if they're covering professional wrestling, given that it's not a "real" sport. [g]
(Hi Mike!)
Posted by Sean McCormick | September 17, 2007 4:35 PM
Posted on September 17, 2007 16:35