Category Archives: Sherman Spotlight

Don Imus saved sports talk radio; Mike and Mad Dog help WFAN explode

Posted on by

Part 2:

In the first part of my interview with Jeff Smulyan, founder of WFAN, he discusses how people thought his idea for a 24/7 sports talk station was “stupid.” A rough first year seemed to confirm that notion.

However, Smulyan’s vision eventually was rewarded when Don Imus became the morning host. He helped saved the station, and likely the sports talk format.

WFAN then hit it big in the afternoon with the pairing of Mike Francesa and Chris Russo, who soon would be known as “Mike and the Mad Dog.”

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of WFAN, here’s part two of my interview with Smulyan. He talks about Imus, Mike and the Mad Dog and the impact of WFAN on changing the face of radio.

Why was Imus so important to sports talk radio?

In 1988, we moved to 660 by acquiring the signal of the former WNBC. The station now had a much stronger reach throughout New York. The move also gave us Imus.

We started (WFAN) with Greg Gumbel in the mornings. He was struggling to generate an audience. I always knew sports would be tough in the morning.

So we inserted Imus in the morning slot. The idea was for listeners to tune into the station in the morning and then hopefully stay with it for the rest of the day.

How did Imus react to working for a sports talk station?

When Imus was on WNBC, he talked a lot about sports. When he got to the Fan, he said ‘I’m not talking about sports.’

At the end of his shift, he said, ‘It’s 10. This ends the entertainment part of today’s programming. For the next 20 hours, you will hear mindless drivel by idiots talking about sports.’

What was his impact on the station?

He was perfect. Most of the decision makers loved sports and they loved Imus. Imus gave us listeners and credibility. I can’t minimize his impact.

Would there be sports talk radio if not for Don Imus?

Good question. (Long pause). I don’t know. Not as much.

You had an afternoon host named Pete Franklin. He and Imus didn’t like each other. Franklin called Imus ‘Minus,’ and Imus labeled Franklin as a ‘dinosaur.’ Franklin, though, didn’t work on WFAN. Why?

Pete was Mr. Cleveland when we brought him to New York. I thought he would be great. And he wasn’t.

You had to make a change. Eventually, you paired Francesa with Russo. How did that come about?

Francesa was a producer who knew everything. Mike’s persistence got him that job.

Imus had Russo on his show. Imus said, ‘This guy sounds like Donald Duck on steroids.’

Imus then said, ‘This guy is a talent. You’ve got to put him on.’

Somebody had the idea to put him together with Francesa and they meshed.

What made their pairing so successful?

There was a good chemistry. Chris was every man, and Mike was this incredibly knowledgeable sports guy.

At its heart (for a sports talk radio host) is the ability to connect with people. Everyone has an opinion about sports. People who love sports love to give their opinions and hear the opinions of other people. They can spot a guy who doesn’t know. The worst thing you can do is put somebody on the air who has no idea.

What did Imus in the morning and Mike and the Mad Dog mean for the station?

The ratings got better. I said, ‘Oh my gosh, this thing is going to make it.’ By that time, I was as surprised as anybody.

In 1992, you sold WFAN to Mel Karmazin of Infinity Broadcasting. Why did you sell?

Selling WFAN was the hardest thing I ever did. Mel made an offer we couldn’t refuse ($75 million).

Mel was the master of understanding Wall Street. Mel realized if he could go public with FAN and reach all the people who traded stocks on Wall Street, it would be a good launching pad for Infinity. He was exactly right.

There’s no question it was tough to sell. But when you run a business long enough, you do what you’ve got to do.

What has been the impact of sports talk radio?

What sports radio did is open up the 24-hour talk portals. Before, a guy got ripped in the paper. Now he walks out of the ballpark, turns on the radio and he gets ripped.

Sports radio heightens everything. When fans say (a coach) has got to go, an owner would be deaf not to listen to it.

You were an owner of the Seattle Mariners during the 1990s. How did it feel to be on the receiving end when it came to sports talk radio?

There was a guy in Seattle who hated me. I was getting ripped.

I was with an owner who shall remain nameless who said, ‘I’ve always wondered if there’s a God. Now knowing the guy who invented this horseshit format is getting ripped, I know there’s a God.’

How do you see the future of sports talk radio?

As long as people love sports, I think it will do very well.

It’s 25 years and there are more than 600 sports talk stations. Looking back, did you ever imagine it would get this big?

I had trouble imagining our station making it. I’m proud with the way it finally turned out. The line between moron and genius is very fine. I’ve been on both sides many times. So when I crossed over the line from moron to genius, I was very proud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sherman Q/A: Founder of sports talk radio looks back at start of WFAN; Associates said ‘dumb idea”

Posted on by

First of two parts

Jeff Smulyan is the proud father of the 24-hour sports talk radio format. Well, make that proud most of the time.

After sports talk radio took a foothold in the early 1990s, Smulyan suddenly found himself on the receiving end of all the barbs and rants by the loud and often out-of-control hosts. Smulyan was the principal partner in the Seattle Mariners during that time. With the situation often proving grim at the Kingdome, the sports talkers took out their rage on the man in charge, Smulyan.

His fellow owners took noticed. They too often found themselves being grilled 24/7 on the new sports talk format.

Smulyan recalled an owner telling him, “I’ve always wondered if there’s a God. Now knowing the guy who invented this horseshit format is getting ripped, I know there’s a God.”

Sitting over lunch, Smulyan laughed at telling that story. There are few people in the industry who have his unique perspective of the good, the bad, and the ugly of sports talk radio.

Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the format known as sports talk radio. It was Smulyan, the founder and CEO of Emmis Communications, who launched WFAN in New York on July 1, 1987.

Here is Suzyn Waldman bringing the station on the air with an update.

That fledgling experiment went on to become the top billing station in the country. More than 600 stations followed WFAN’s lead, adopting the 24-hour sports talk format. Last week, CBS Sports announced plans to launch 24/7 sports radio programming. Of course, ESPN dived in years ago.

Sports talk radio has been a certified revolution, changing how all things sports are covered and consumed.

And it almost didn’t happen.

To commemorate the 25th anniversary, this is the first of a three-part interview with Smulyan. I had a chance to talk with him at his Emmis’ headquarters in Indianapolis. I was joined by Bob Snyder, a former sports talk general manager in Washington and Chicago and now a prominent radio consultant.

Today Smulyan discusses the launch of WFAN.

How did it begin?

We owned a station that had the Mets and country music. In those days, a lot of AM stations played music. We didn’t think there was a future there on AM. We looked around and said, ‘What are we going to do?’  I said, ‘What about the sports idea?’

What gave you the idea?

I always thought there was a much greater affinity for sports in the East than the West. If we ever were going to do it,  we should do it in New York. Nobody knew whether it would work. I thought what the heck? We’ve got an AM station. Let’s give it a try.

What was the reaction from people within your company?

Emmis is very collaborative group. The consensus was it was a dumb idea. I’ll never forget. I walked out of the meeting. (Emmis executive) Steve Crane wanted to do it. He said, ‘What are we going to do.’ I said, ‘You can’t lead when people won’t follow.’ This idea is dead.

Next day, they said, ‘We feel sorry for you. We’ll give you one. We’ll give you this stupid idea.’

How did the station become known as WFAN?

We brought in a guy named John Shannon. His wife came up with the name FAN. I thought it was cool. We would be the station for the fans.

What was the reaction once you went on the air?

A good friend called me after we had been on the air for a month. He said, ‘I always thought you were a smart guy. You’re an idiot. This is the dumbest idea I’ve ever seen.’

It was a struggle. At one point I said (to an executive), ‘Can’t you sell something to somebody?’

During the first year, we said, ‘It’s 5, we lost another $40,000 today.’

Why didn’t you pull the plug?

I always told people you never create anything of value if you just follow conventional wisdom.

The bankers said, ‘How long are you going to keep doing this?’ This was my baby. I still thought it would fun. I said, ‘Let’s do it for another year.’

Tomorrow: How Don Imus saved sports talk radio.

To hear more from Smulyan, here’s an interview he and Emmis programming president Rick Cummings did with Radioink.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deford address to sports editors: New media age creating society of ‘optionally illiterate people’

Posted on by

Nobody says it better than Frank Deford, and his speech Friday in Chicago nailed it again when it comes to the state of the profession and his concerns about the literacy rate of society.

Deford was the recipient of this year’s Red Smith Award by the Associated Press Sports Editors. For nearly 30 minutes, he entertained with stories and insights of a legendary career at Sports Illustrated and beyond.

Then, as any good writer does, Deford saved his best for last. He talked about his concern for the direction of sportswriting and the overall impact the new media age has had on dumbing down society.

Pay close attention:

Like everyone else, I have no idea what’s going to happen to the future of our profession. The great thing about sportswriting is that it’s about storytelling. The drama, the glamor. Every day, somebody wins and somebody loses. The secret, the reality is, if you can’t write about sports, you can’t write. You ought to get out of the business.

I don’t want to see sportswriting be overwhelmed by statistics. I want to read about the heart and blood of athletes and their stories, which has made sportswriting so special.

I worry who is going to pay for the expensive stuff. The long, expensive, investigative pieces, the enterprise journalism. The work that matters more than anything else and justifies the whole experience as journalists.

I worry about creating a large class of college educated people who may be optionally illiterate. Yes, they can read and write, and yes, they have a diploma, but they’ve chosen not to read and write. Texting is not writing. Text is clearing your throat. The best writing is about seduction. Texting is the literary equivalent of air kissing.

I fear we’ve created a small intellectual elite and an otherwise unlearned class of people. I can’t conceive of anyone who doesn’t read anything substantial. If you can see too much through video, you lose the capacity to try to deduce, and more importantly, you lose the capacity to imagine. That’s what writing allows us to do.

I see the future being so bright, and yet at the same time blurry. That’s where we are at now.

Deford then concluded by holding up a piece of paper that said -30-. “For those of you who remember what this means,” he said.

It was a powerful speech that packed so many truths. Hopefully, people in our business will take note.

Here are some other highlights from the speech:

On Red Smith: The most literate, entertaining columnist ever. He showed great writing belongs in the newspaper as much as anywhere else.

On covering Billie Jean King: If there was a Title IX that changed things, Billie was Title XIII. She was the most significant (athlete) of the 20th Century. Culturally, I was so lucky to have her at the beginning of my tour.

On the late great National: It was the last great newspaper adventure in the country. (While on his book tour) Invariably, there’s always somebody who comes along with a first or last copy of the National for me to sign. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get it out. Only a week after we started, I couldn’t get it delivered to my house. I thought to myself, ‘We’ve got a problem here.’

On editors (early in the speech, Deford paid tribute to Tom Patterson, a former editor at the National who died last week): A wonderful old newspaper man Gene Fowler once said, ‘Every editor needs a pimp for a brother so they would have someone to look up to’…I don’t want to be soupy, but editors are the soul of our profession. Before my experiences at the National, I was too damn conceited to fully appreciate that.

 

 

 

 

 

ESPN’s Doria on Twitter: A big headache; Worries about diminished standards

Posted on by

Vince Doria does have a Twitter account. He is pictured with his perfectly-groomed white beard.

And that’s about all you’ll get from Doria on Twitter. He has yet to post a tweet.

“Somebody went behind my back and signed me up,” Doria said.

Doria, ESPN’s senior vice-president and director of news, has little use for Twitter. In fact, when asked about it, he said the whole social media thing gives him “a headache.”

Of course, this attitude flies in the face of the importance of Twitter to ESPN. NFL reporter Adam Schefter has 1.6 million followers who hang on his every tweet about football.

The majority of ESPN’s personalities are well into six figures when it comes to followers, and they stay connected with 24/7 tweets. It’s 2012. Tweet or die.

Yet Doria’s concerns about Twitter are telling and highly relevant for the entire media industry, not just ESPN. Social media definitely will a topic during this week’s Associated Press Sports Editors convention in Chicago. Many are sure to take note of their former colleague’s views: Doria was a sports editor at the Boston Globe and the National in a previous life.

Indeed, I can’t believe how much I’ve written about Twitter since I started this site two months ago. It has provided me plenty of material.

And now I have some more Twitter talk. Here’s my Q/A with Doria.

Why did you say Twitter is a headache?

Well, yeah…(long sigh) if social networking never existed, we wouldn’t miss it. We wouldn’t know it ever existed. We wouldn’t feel our life was impaired in any way. We lived without e-mail. How did we operate without it?

What are some of the pitfalls?

I’ll give you an example. You may recall (somebody at) the Washington Post hit a wrong button and prematurely reported John Wooden’s death. It was out there. Somebody saw it and sent it to Adam Schefter. Adam retweeted it. The next thing I know, I see Adam Schefter reported that John Wooden had died. All he did was pass it along.

I said our guys, why are you doing this? It’s not your stuff. You’ve got to let your followers know that the Washington Post is reporting John Wooden died?

If your identity touches it, people want to lay it on you, particularly if you’re ESPN. It’s one of the dangers.

But you know Twitter is essential these days in this business.

Look, social networking is a terrific resource. The ability to directly to interact with viewers, listeners, readers.

But it also makes it very difficult when you have a process in place to properly vet material to the point where you’re satisfied with sourcing. Social networking flies in the face of that.

We all get it. We all appreciate the immediacy of it. On the other hand, trying to do that and maintain the traditional standards of journalism is a challenge. There’s no other way to put it.

Specifically, what do you see that’s being compromised?

There’s so many people chasing stories. Everybody is a wire service now. Anybody can break a story. Once they’re out there, you’re not always sure of the accuracy of them. I can’t speak for everyone, but there’s not the same concern for being accurate. In some cases, it’s ‘here’s what we hear.’ Here it is. Maybe it’s right, maybe it isn’t.

But the very nature of that, you can’t have that kind of information and expect everyone would adhere to the standards of journalism that have been in place for so long.

Isn’t this all about being first with a story on Twitter? And then you’re first for about 35 seconds. 

There’s no doubt that some of being first is diminished by the fact that everyone has it within 10 seconds. They may have it, but you don’t know they’re sourcing. Why you certainly can attribute the story, you wonder about the veracity, particularly with the crowded landscape. It’s one thing to be satisfied with sourcing from the Washington Post or New York Times. It’s another thing when it’s a blogger or somebody tweeting it who is essentially unknown to you. You don’t know their sources; you don’t how diligent they’ve been.

How important is it for ESPN’s reporters to break stories?

There may come a time when maybe that won’t matter anymore. But if you came up in the journalist era I did, it’s still important to be first.

Yeah, we want to be right more than anything. But right after that, yeah, you want to be first. There’s an expectation that we’re going to be first on stories. We can’t be first on all of them, but we’ve branded ourselves the World Wide Leader of Sports. Not sure what that means, but part of it is trying to get out in front of stories. We hope we can bring fresh reporting to it. Fresh perspective. But being first still is a part of it. It’s in your DNA to a certain extent.

You know there are people who say Doria is behind the times. If you were 25, you would be all over Twitter.

Yeah, but it’s got its inherent risks. For every good piece of information that comes out on social networks, a lot of mindless patter comes out too.

You have many great thoughts. Why have you resisted tweeting?

Social networking provides a lot of information. That’s great. It also provides a lot of vapid discussion that I can’t believe anyone is much interested in. It also provides a great risk in terms to entities in terms of putting their foot in their mouth. I’ve seen plenty of examples. That’s the reason why I’ve resisted.

People who know me well know I like to be sarcastic. Given my role here, objectivity is very important. For me, the danger of social networking is the appearance that I’m not objective in a certain area. I’d prefer not have that perception.

So we shouldn’t expect any tweets soon from Vince Doria?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contentious Rome-David Stern interview: Commish accuses Rome of ‘cheap thrill’ question

Posted on by

Great to see NBA Commissioner David Stern throw it back in the face of Jim Rome today.

During the final portion of an interview with the commish on his radio show, Rome asked about the ridiculous notion that the draft lottery was fixed to give the New Orleans Hornets the No. 1 pick in the draft. Don’t get me started on that subject.

Deadspin has the link to the interview.

Rome said: “I know you appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy. Was the fix in for the lottery?”

Stern’s initial response included him asking Rome, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Indeed, how was Stern supposed respond?. One loaded question deserved another.

Rome and Stern debated for a few minutes. Then eventually, Stern said: “It’s good copy when you do things for cheap thrills.”

Later Stern said, “You’ve been successful making a career out of it.”

Whoa.

Rome clearly was taken aback and protested the comments. Running out of patience, Stern said, “Do you want to hang up on me?”

Whoa, part 2.

For the record, Rome didn’t hang up. Eventually, the exchange ended with Stern saying, “”I have to go call someone important now. Stephen A. Smith is up next.”

Whoa, part 3.

I’m not sure about Rome’s intentions, but he should have known better than to ask Stern such a loaded question. Then again, perhaps Rome knew exactly what he was doing.

The exchange has Rome trending on Twitter and elsewhere.

As for Rome, this is his most recent Tweet as of 3:30 ET: “NBA Commissioner David Stern, right now in The Jungle”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sherman Interview: High honors, challenging times for John Feinstein

Posted on by

First of two parts:

You would think being inducted Monday to the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association Hall of Fame in North Carolina would be the top thrill for John Feinstein this week. However, the noted author also has something else on his agenda:

A command performance from Robert Redford.

The actor invited Feinstein to Sundance in Utah Saturday to discuss books at one of his arts functions. It’s such a unique opportunity that the Golf Channel gave Feinstein permission to skip the third round of the U.S. Open in San Francisco to attend the event.

“He heard me on NPR promoting a book,” Feinstein said. “When I called the Golf Channel, they said, ‘Yeah, you’ve got to be there.’ It’s pretty cool.”

Feinstein, 56, has enjoyed plenty of cool moments in his long career. More than enough to merit a nod to the Hall, where he will go in with Bob Costas on the sportscasters side.

He is the greatest selling sports book author of all time; his 29th book, Rush for the Gold, aimed for kids, just hit the shelves. Nearly 30 years after he wrote it, Feinstein still is fielding compliments for his breakthrough, A Season on the Brink.

However, the changing publishing industry (much lower fees) has even affected bestselling authors like Feinstein. It has forced him to take on other duties to make up for the loss in revenue. While he says he enjoys his new gig as co-host with Bruce Murray on the Beyond the Brink show on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Radio, he frankly admits it is something he is doing out of “necessity rather than want.”

Several times during our interview, Feinstein talked about the need to find the time to exercise in the wake of having heart bypass surgery in 2009. It all makes for a compressed and hectic lifestyle for Feinstein.

I checked in with Feinstein last week. Here’s the first part of my Q/A where he talks about his career, past and present. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss his views on sports talk radio.

What does it mean to be inducted into the NSSA Hall?

It’s up there. You look at the names on the writing side: Red Smith, Jim Murray, Dave Kindred, heck, Damon Runyon. Bob Ryan got inducted last year. That what it means to me. When you get older, you get a lot of honors and you say, ‘OK, thank you.’ But this is one where you go, ‘Wow. This is cool.’

How does it feel to go with Bob Costas?

It’s thrilling for me because I will be the tallest inductee. He actually called to congratulate me. We both grew up in the business together. In the early 80s, he was calling college basketball games for NBC and I was covering college basketball for the Washington Post. It’ll be great to go in with him.

What does this award signify about your career?

It says I’m old. It’s the old cliche: It’s nice to be recognized by your peers. I’ve learned to take compliments from people in stages. To this day, I still have people who say they love watching me on Sports Reporters. I haven’t been on the show since 2007.

When they say, they enjoy me on the Golf Channel or that they loved Season on a Brink, I say, ‘Oh, thank you very much.’ Now if they say they love A Civil War (Army vs. Navy), they’re my best friend. Civil War is my favorite book.

To have people understand what it means to write 29 books and work at the Post all these years, that’s more important to me than a fan poll about who’s your favorite sportswriter. Not that I’d win anyway.

Your last book, One on One, was personal, telling the back stories of people you covered in your books. Why did you go that route?

The great thing about doing that book was that I realized I developed some real relationships through the years. When you do a book, it isn’t just five minutes in front of a locker. You spend time with these people. To be able to go back to those people you haven’t seen in years, you realize there was some kind of relationship and trust that was built.

Any new books in the works?

I’m doing a book on Triple A baseball. The other day I watched the PawSox play the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs.

How have you been affected by the changes in the book business?

It doesn’t dim my desire to write books, but it’s harder because the money has gone down. It’s gone down for John Grisham too. I had a long period where I could focus on books and do other stuff that I chose to do. Now, I enjoy doing the radio show, but it takes four hours out of my day.

Because I’m not making as much as I need to on the books, because of (supporting a family), it forces me to take on more work where, frankly, I’d rather be focused on books. It’s not a matter of choice. It’s a matter of necessity.

You’ve done books for Little Brown for years. Now you’re next book will be with Doubleday. Why the change?

After One on One, we made a mutual decision to go in different directions. Little Brown has gotten much more into publishing fiction. I started to feel a little uncomfortable and less of a priority.

You’re also working as a contributor to the Golf Channel. How did that come about?

When they reached out to me, I said, I’ve never had good experiences with TV. I told them I used to do essays for CBS. They said, fine, let’s do that.

It’s great, and I enjoy everybody over there. But if it was up to me, instead of being on the set, I’d rather be walking the course or working the range. That’s no putdown to the Golf Channel. Writing is what I love. It’s what I do best.

How do you balance everything?

It’s not easy. I try to write every morning before the show starts. But I also have to exercise. It’s something I must do. The radio show takes up a good portion of my day. When it’s over, I still need to have the energy to do the reporting and writing.

You’re 56. What frontiers are there left for you to conquer?

It’s interesting. Again, it comes down to necessity vs. want. Necessity keeps me doing radio and TV. I still love writing for the Post. That’s something I’ll always do. I love writing the books. I love doing the books for kids. You get those letters from kids or parents of kids, who say their kid never read a book until he read mine.

If there’s one thing I haven’t done is that I’d like to write a play. I’m 99.9 percent sure it never would leave the house. I love the theater. I’ve always thought Red Auerbach could be a great one-man play. I would like to write a play about men and their relationships in sports.

It’s something I’ve always wanted to do. I just haven’t had the time to do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sherman Interview 2: Feinstein a different voice for Mad Dog Radio

Posted on by

John Feinstein never will consider himself to be a radio guy. As he established in part 1 of our interview, he is a writer first and foremost.

However, since radio now occupies four hours of his day, Feinstein wants to be good at it. In his mind, it means doing some things that break from the tradition of sports talk radio.

In part 2 of our Q/A, he discusses his relatively new show with co-host Bruce Murray, Beyond the Brink (Mad Dog Radio, 10 a.m.-2 p.m. ET). He talks about differences in approach with Murray, boring guests, and Tony Kornheiser, whose radio show serves as a blueprint for Feinstein.

What has it been like doing a daily radio show?

I haven’t found it that hard. I can talk for four hours with taking a breath.

It took a while for Bruce and I to adjust. He had been doing it alone. We have different ideas for what makes good sports talk radio. Bruce is more traditional. He focuses on games, NFL, NBA, baseball. We had an argument on a Monday about what was the big story: Tiger Woods winning the Memorial or Celtics-Heat. I thought it was Tiger. He thought it was Celtics-Heat.

Tiger Woods, for better or worse, is the best-known athlete in the world. I tend to talk about people, tell stories about people. Bruce likes to break down the games. It’s OK to get two different guys. Over the course of four hours, you don’t want to sound the same.

Is it possible to do a successful sports talk show without a lot of bluster?

Tony Kornheiser has shown you can be successful by doing a smart show. A lot of what I do comes from him. His philosophy is that you don’t have people on just because they are big names. A couple of times, they came to me and said, ‘We can get so and so.’ I said, ‘He’s terrible.’ Tony has a no athletes rule. I don’t think I can get away with that, but I’d rather have on a smart TV commentator or journalist or a coach willing to talk.

They booked (Baltimore GM) Dan Duquette. The Orioles have had a lot of success. Dan came on for 15 minutes and it was physically painful. Then I booked (Baltimore baseball writer) Peter Schmuck. He was great. Peter’s going to be honest, while GMs are paid to hide stuff.

Whether or not we can succeed this way, I don’t know. I’m going to try to do it.

What is your view on callers?

If you get a smart caller, that’s fine. Let him make a few points. But if you get someone who is screaming, get him off. Bruce said, ‘Oh no, you can’t do that.’ I said, ‘Not only can you do that, but you should.’

We had a cadre of callers who were pissed when I first got here. Part of it was people reacting negatively to change and part of it was people who felt it was their show. One day, we had a guy who was screaming because he was put on hold. I said, ‘Fine, don’t call.’

Some of those callers have gone away, and we’ve replaced them with some quality callers. We have 6-8 regular callers where I’m kind of interested in what they have to say.

What do you bring to the show?

I think I’m able to add some things because of my background. Because of what and who I’ve covered through the years. Sometimes I tell stories about people I know. Like when Casey Martin qualified for the U.S. Open. I talked about being in the Supreme Court when they heard his case, and then talking about it to Casey later. I talked about some of the arguments I witnessed in the locker room. I told the story of Fred Couples arguing with Payne Stewart. Fred thought he should get a cart because he had a bad back. Your typical sports talk host doesn’t know this.

What kind of feedback have you gotten thus far?

It’s been positive. But you know in TV and radio, you’re great until the day they fire you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Q/A: Is there method to the madness, or is Ozzie just crazy?

Posted on by

I barely finished the question.

“Yes,” said Rick Morrissey quickly in reply to whether he wished his deadline was a few months later for his book, Ozzie’s School of Management?

Morrissey’s last chapter covers Ozzie Guillen’s first spring training with Florida. That was pushing things for a book due out in May.

However, no sooner did the book go to press than Guillen found himself in major trouble for incredibly stupid statements about Fidel Castro. Now that would have been a fun chapter for the book.

“Yes, I wish I could have gotten into that, but that’s life,” Morrissey said. “Frankly, with Ozzie, if the deadline was two months later, there would be something else.”

Morrissey, who covered Guillen first as a columnist for the Tribune and now with the Sun-Times, hardly was lacking in material. He uses the backdrop of Guillen’s final stormy season in Chicago to paint a portrait of a most unusual, complex and compelling man.

Morrissey attempts to explain Guillen’s approach to baseball and life. However, I found this line from him to be telling:

Sometimes there’s not a method to Guillen’s madness. Sometimes, there’s just madness.

Here’s my Q/A with Morrissey.

What does the title say about what you’re trying to accomplish in the book?

The title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. It’s like you’d see in one of those bestseller self-help books. Let’s take a crazy manager and see how he does his job. Obviously, there’s the perception that Ozzie is a wild and crazy guy. I think he is a victim of that big personality. People don’t take him seriously.

But there’s more to him. I wanted to see how he does his job.

Is Guillen crazy or is there a method to his madness?

We had several discussions where I said, ‘Ozzie, you’re doing things for effect.’ He said, ‘No, I’m not. I say what I think.’ I do think he likes the attention. He says he doesn’t. However, some of the things he does are borderline ridiculous. You don’t put yourself in that many situations to be criticized if you didn’t want attention.

You didn’t do this book in partnership with Guillen. What kind of cooperation did you get from him?

It’s interesting. He never said, ‘I don’t have time for you.’ If I thought I was bothering him, he’d say, ‘Don’t worry about it.’

Reporters always are looking for the one-on-one interview, but I soon learned he was better in a group situation. The stories were better and he was more engaged. I knew there’s no way writers could write about most of this stuff. I found I got a lot of insights into how he does things when he was talking to a group of us.

Were you surprised about Guillen’s statements about Castro?

I was surprised in the sense that he would go there. He’s a Latin guy and he’s a smart guy. He knows there are things you don’t say when you’re managing in the Cuban capital of America. I don’t think he meant to say what he said. I’m not apologizing for him, but I think it was more along the lines of ‘I can’t believe this guy still is in power.’ But that doesn’t change that he said what he said.

Do you think the harsh reaction will change him?

I thought he looked very contrite. I had never seen him shaken like that. However, I don’t think you can change him. Maybe in the short term, but not in the long term. That’s his personality.

Guillen is the king of F-bombs. You decided to use all of his language in its colorful glory. Why?

I did think about the kids who might pick up this book. But swearing is as much a part of Ozzie as breathing. I thought if I took it out, I wouldn’t be painting a complete portrait of him.

So what kind of portrait did you paint of Guillen?

That’s a good question. I think I painted a portrait of someone who is a lot more than the cartoonish depiction of him in many circles. There’s always a lot of, ‘That’s Ozzie being Ozzie.’ It is him, but there’s more.

It’s about how he handles his players. He’s a better game tactician than people give him credit for.

It’s also about someone who is very needy in terms of attention and affirmation. He wanted that (contract extension) from Jerry Reinsdorf last year, and he didn’t get it. Then he left. That sums up a lot about Ozzie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sullivan tells his side: San Diego U-T CEO viewed him as ‘obstructionist’

Posted on by

For more, please read my Tuesday post on the U-T CEO’s desire for sports section to “support” local teams. Go Chargers!

****

Ever want to experience being at your own funeral? Just get fired as a columnist at a major paper.

It’s been a weird few days for Tim Sullivan ever since the San Diego Union-Tribune canned him Friday. Accolades have poured in throughout the country from the sportswriter fraternity. There’s also been a hefty dose of outrage from readers in San Diego.

“It feels like Tom Sawyer watching his own funeral,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan and his career, though, are far from dead. Since he has received several calls (including one from me) asking to tell his side of the story, he decided to do what a columnist does: Type it up.

Here’s Sullivan (with highlights in bold):

Short story long:

The links tell a little of the back story of my conflict with Union-Tribune CEO John Lynch (who I have yet to meet in person). The first is a column I wrote when he ran a local sports talk station. The second is a piece that appeared on the Voice of San Diego web site shortly after he became the new CEO of the Union-Tribune.

Clearly, the two of us were looking at stadium issues from different vantage points. My position has been that the paper’s primary responsibility is to protect the public from another bad deal, such as the one that resulted in San Diego agreeing to guarantee sellouts for the Chargers. That document was so badly drafted that even a sportswriter could see its flaws: no limit to liability, no cap on ticket prices. I have felt that the paper dropped the ball in failing to scrutinize that deal (years before my arrival) and should be exceedingly careful in endorsing another stadium deal. Mr. Lynch appears to be of a mind to make the stadium happen and bulldoze the opposition or even those who raise questions.

(Sherman: Note this passage from the Voice interview):

But Lynch said he wants the paper to be pro-business. The sports page to be pro-Chargers stadium. And reporters to become stars.

“It’s news information, but it’s also show biz,” Lynch said. “You get people to tune in and read your site or the paper when there’s an ‘Oh wow’ in the paper.”

He wants that sports page to be an advocate for a new football stadium “and call out those who don’t as obstructionists.”

“To my way of thinking,” Lynch said, “that’s a shovel-ready job for thousands.”

(Back to Tim) Shortly after the Voice of San Diego piece appeared, I initiated a meeting with U-T editor Jeff Light to provide him the background on what I had written about Lynch and to express my ethical concerns going forward. I told him then that I was not in a position to quit on principle but that I was worried that Lynch’s interview had inflicted serious damage to the paper’s credibility and that his leadership would result in compromised standards. (It has, and on several fronts.)

Later, as new management built a television station in the newsroom with the intent of launching 24/7 programming and using existing reporting staff to create content, I raised questions at staff meetings about how this could be done without compromising the printed product and about the hiring of a controversial radio host, who worked for Lynch’s former station and was fired for outrageous and potentially slanderous on-air comments about a woman prior to being hired at the U-T.

Based on some correspondence that has been forwarded to me, Lynch is telling readers I was not on board with the new initiatives.

“I have high regard for Tim as a reporter. However, we are no longer just a newspaper. We are are (sic) Multi-media platform business. Our content providers have to be willing to provide to, paper, to video, to tv, and blog as well as write.”

In a follow-up message to the same reader (MALLenSanDiego@aol.com), Lynch again implied that I was not willing to go along with the new mandate.

“We need all on our team rowing in the same direction.”

The implication is that I was unwilling to go along with the program. Quite the opposite is true. I maintain a Twitter account with more than 5,000 followers. I have made it a point to respond to virtually every reader e-mail I receive. When the paper had a weekly deal with a local TV station, I would drive the 25 miles from my home — often on a day off — for an appearance for which I was not paid. I have never refused or even resisted an assignment or a request from the paper; whether that entails speaking at pre-dawn breakfast meetings, appearing on local, regional and national radio, appearing at schools or representing the paper at the Del Mar Fair and the U-T’s aging expo. The suggestion that I was reluctant to embrace the new technology is preposterous. If I am not allowed to ask pointed questions regarding practicality without severe consequences — this while the paper employs a broadcaster as repeatedly offensive as is Scott Kaplan — I don’t even know how to respond.

I have stated on my Facebook page and in an April 26 e-mail to Light that I believe in the need for multiple platforms but have questions about the logistics of such an operation.

Here follows an excerpt from my April 26 e-mail to Jeff Light, which was written the same day I questioned him at the staff meeting:

“Be assured that I am in agreement with the basic principles of a multi-platform news operation, and recognize the need for the Union-Tribune to expand its reach through other media. If the printed paper is a dinosaur, as I fear it is, it must learn to adapt if it is to survive.

“My primary concerns relate to the inherent difficulty of serving multiple masters at the same time and serving all of them well in a finite number of hours. I wish I were more optimistic about how this new business model can work, and about our ability to bear the additional burdens being placed on a news operation that many staff members believe is already overtaxed, but I hope to be proven wrong.”

Light did not respond to this message. Nor was I given any formal (or even informal) notice that I was in danger. Last Wednesday, I received an e-mail message that I was to meet with Light at 3 p.m. Friday afternoon. By 3:02, I had been fired.

I have asked a friend who is also Lynch’s brother-in-law to inquire if Lynch is amenable to a face-to-face meeting. I’d like to get a specific rationale for my dismissal and, if possible, to disabuse him of any notion that I was not a team player prepared to do whatever was asked to help the paper.

Case in point: Last Monday was a holiday and my day off. I received a tip that Phil Mickelson had joined forces with one of the groups trying to buy the San Diego Padres. I cancelled a family trip, broke an exclusive story that was the most viewed story on our web site and received significant national play. This was not an isolated example of my approach to my job.

Though I can’t read Lynch’s mind, I am inclined to believe that my firing was the result of multiple factors: 1) My failure to endorse a new stadium without wondering whether that’s good public policy, a justifiable expense or a good deal; 2) My comparatively healthy salary; 3) My age and/or demographic. Our two other sports columnists are also white males: Nick Canepa, who is older but a local institution, and the youthful Kevin Acee, who was just promoted to that position. Acee has been identified as one of the paper’s “stars.”; 4) The erroneous issue of whether I was “on board.”

Since I continue to hold out a slight hope that this situation can be salvaged — there has been strong support for me within the newsroom and on message boards — I don’t want to appear too combative. I’d like to point out that the public rationale being used to fire me is a canard and that the other factors are more plausible. If my salary was an issue, however, the idea of taking a cut was never broached. Nor was I offered a reassignment.

I do not believe I am a martyr for truth — as Don Bauder has suggested on the San Diego Reader website — but I do think I have been mistreated. Where do I go from here? I am working on several tracks: 1) Seeking a meeting with Lynch; 2) Applying for several positions known to be open around the country; 3) Learning of other positions on an unsolicited basis. I have talked to one sports editor at length and anticipate speaking to another one tomorrow. I am hopeful that I can find a satisfactory situation very soon. I am mobile and motivated.

 

Who needs a host? ESPN exec explains why hostless NBA Countdown works

Posted on by

What ESPN did with its NBA Countdown show this year might not be good news for James Brown, Curt Menefee, Chris Berman, Chris Fowler, and countless other hosts of studio shows.

ESPN has proved that a studio show can be done without a quote-unquote host.

In one of the more unique experiments in recent years, ESPN decided to go without a studio host for its NBA studio show. In previous years, the network had employed Hannah Storm and Stuart Scott to direct the traffic.

This year, ESPN simply put Magic Johnson, Michael Wilbon, Chris Broussard, and Jon Barry at a table and let them talk. Wilbon does most of the nuts and bolts stuff when it comes to opening the segments. But unlike a regular host, his main purpose is to be an analyst, offering his opinions in the discussion.

ESPN’s version is a contrast to TNT’s Inside the NBA, where host Ernie Johnson has to steer through the goofiness often generated by Charles Barkley. ESPN’s NBA Countdown is far less yuks and more hardcore basketball.

Mark Gross, ESPN senior VP and executive producer , is more than pleased with the new format. I asked him about the show in a Q/A.

Why did ESPN decide to go without a host?

We thought let’s just try something different. We thought if we could get the right guys together, we wouldn’t need a host. We believe they could carry it on their own.

This place is built on a risk. It shouldn’t be that difficult for us to take a risk on a pre-game show. It doesn’t have to look like every other show that’s out there. If you get the right four guys, it can work.

Why is it working with these guys?

It works because they all get along. Two, they’re big basketball fans. Three, they all have something to say. Magic is great. He’s exactly who you think he is. He’s even a better person.

What about the comparisons to TNT’s show?

We don’t have Charles Barkley. We’re not getting him. Everyone understands that. That’s OK. We’re happy with the show we have. I’ve never seen anything positive written about our show since we’ve gotten the NBA until this year. We’re pleased with how it’s turned out.

Does this mean hosts are going to be passe on ESPN’s studio shows?

No. There are a lot of shows where you want a host. You want to ask a specific question. You want Chris Fowler to host College Gameday. In that show, you need someone to get you from point A to point B to point C. It’s a two-hour show.

NBA Countdown is different. What we’ve done works for this show.