Fitzy's Take: The fellowship of the miserable



I pose this question to Boston sports fans:  Are you force-fed bad sports reporting?  Are you forced to listen to know-it-alls talk about your teams?  Do you wish the whole system would change?

One writer says yes to all three of the above questions.  In the February issue of Boston magazine, Alan Siegel takes the Boston sports media to task in an article called "The Fellowship of the Miserable."  His contention is that the fans of Boston deserve more than a group of self-important, stuffy and old-fashioned writers to cover their teams on a daily basis.  He's half right.

While I agree with him that game stories are old hat, and locker room access is far less valuable than it used to be, I think he uses the term "irrelevant" pretty loosely.  Siegel questions whether fans actually want to see or hear from these guys, or simply have no other choice.

Yes, the list of writers, columnists, former jocks and personalities giving their opinions on the airwaves are endless.  But so are our options in how we consume them.  The choice is ours to take in what we like and ignore what we don't.

I see what Siegel is saying, but I think the article is a few years too late.  In Boston, there's actually competition now.  There are two sports-talk stations.  There are endless blogs, team websites and podcasts.  If you don't like the old guard, don't read ‘em.  If you don't like who's on the radio, download a podcast.  There are people doing great work, and others not as good.  How is this different from any business in the world?  There's the Cleveland Browns and the Patriots.  There's Harvard and the University of Phoenix.

The culture is changing in all media, not just with sports in Boston.  As can be expected, some are quicker to realize it.  Those that aren't will fall behind.  And while you may have to search harder for great sports coverage, it's definitely there.