NRJ Book Review: Baseball and the Media: How Fans Lose in Today's Coverage of the Game

Abstract

Baseball and the Media: How Fans Lose in Today's Coverage of the Game, by George Castle (Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press, 2006) 262 pages, $24.95 (paperback).Reviewed by Colin M. DonohueGeorge Castle's status as a seam-head remains unquestioned. The Chicago Cubs baseball beat writer proves his allegiance the way any self-respecting baseball aficionado would: He takes his potshots at the game of football-most notably, the National Football League. Most who call themselves NFL fans probably could not name their favorite team's starting offensive linemen or top defensive reserves, Castle remarks in his opening salvo against all things NFL. Castle's deep-rooted affection for the national pastime is clearly evident, but the worrisome and oftentimes irascible author of Baseball and the Media laments for the fans of the game.Castle's thesis: Baseball is the most media-accessible professional sport, but increasingly, fans are receiving far less information about the game for a myriad of reasons, including the shrinking news holes, a re-emphasis on high school sports, the pervasiveness of sports talk radio, the 24-hour news cycle and the neophyte reporters assigned to cover baseball as their first regular newspaper gig. All of the above conspire to create a tenuous relationship between the media and professional baseball players. When those liaisons are severed, it is the fans who absorb the brunt of the divorce. Castle's analysis of the omnipresent ills that affect the print journalism industry, in general, breaks no new ground. His text, though, is still important because of its niche nature (it relates only to a specific sport) and because baseball has a long, rich history, which makes it easier to track the devolution of the sport's coverage.Castle meticulously lists the incremental downfall of baseball coverage, chapter by chapter. He recalls the days when beat writers from all major newspapers traveled with teams and spent their days at the ballparks, engaging players in off-the-cuff, informal conversations. Relationships were developed and cultivated. Information was richer. More important, the reporter was a fixture. Priorities began to shift, however, as football became more popular. strong-armed or capricious editors would demonstrate their desire to appeal to a focused audience, adhering to market-driven journalism principles, which meant papers began to value high school sports and professional football more than professional baseball. In addition, younger reporters are tasked with important jobs-usually the baseball beat. The youngsters, though, have little knowledge of clubhouse etiquette and baseball history, making the players weary of the infant media horde. The evolution of sports-talk radio and television, which extol highlights and shun the dissemination of legitimate information, hindered coverage more. Castle interviewed droves of baseball players (mostly Cubs), front office personnel and journalists. Like Castle, they, too, recognized the problem, which he so clearly recounts in his book. The author, however, never really proffers an overarching prescription to staunch the turning industry tide.It is easy to diagnose all that ails print journalism these days. But nailing down that elusive cure? There lies the problem. He can point to sports talk radio and say, rightly so, Sometimes the shock value of general talk radio slops over to inflame the players even more. And that affects how everyday media does their job. He can rail against the kiddie media who seem to disenchant and alienate players. But, other than stating that the trend toward less coverage needs to stop, how else can baseball reporting be saved? According to Castle, most likely not through the Internet:A portion of analysis is thoughtful, intelligent, even ahead of the curve found in established media. …