RMN's Dave Krieger on sports writing

Apparently, even though he's a four-times-a-week sports columnist, he doesn't think much of it.

Look, the point a lot of people continue to miss is this: No other section of the paper has to approach daily coverage from so many different directions.

Sure, perhaps interested in steroid use should have been ratcheted up a few notches a lot earlier. (I still maintain that little that was reportable was "uncovered" until a grand jury got involved.)

But let's say we unleashed armies of investigative reporters uncovering scandal and impropriety all over the sports world. Would sports sections' readers be better served?

Business sections report news with some features sprinkled in. Same with local/metro sections.

The sports section is one that that includes what amounts to entertainment news, plus features, "reviews" (game coverage, if you will) and, yes, hard news.

Abandoning the sports section's core readers to focus on "uncovering" scandal isn't the answer. Most come to sports sections to be entertained, and to escape.

Some find this as apologism for maintaining the "toy department" philosphy; I don't see how it can be denied.

There's room for hard news in the sports section, obviously; and Dave's right, it's not the sports media's job to help cover up scandal.

But there are a lot of things that need to be done to put out a good sports section. "Sports journalism" is not an oxymoron. It's just a different kind of journalism.