So there's this girl, right (just run with me for a minute here). And she's got a big book in front of her. Let's say it's a black book, sitting on a coffee table, and let's say she's at an apartment in, say, New York.
Now supposing this girl, who is sitting fairly comfortably, leans up to the table and opens this book somewhere near the center. She glances at a page, turns it and looks at another. She repeats this process a couple times and closes the book, with a look of disgust on her face.
"Shit! Where, are all the real reporters?" she says, closing the book and ending the story.
Now the incriminating evidence comes from the book: The book is a list of all The Chronicle's alumni who have graduated from Duke and continued working in journalism in some form. As the girl looked down the list she noticed a trend - most of the writers were at publications like Sports Illustrated - and that's when she closed the book.
It's a true story; the names, faces and color of the book have been changed to protect the guilty.
But seriously, it's also a common stereotype in journalism spheres. Sports journalism is seen as inferior. News, or in The Chronicle's case, university types have poked fun at sports ever since the first newspaper started separating its publication by sections.
They say all we do is write up press releases. They say we never have to "dig" for our stories. They say all our news is planned - you go to a game, watch it, write it up. How hard can it be?
They are ruthless. They'll even bring up the fact that we get fed for free before football and basketball games, and they try to call it corrupt. Questionable, maybe - there's definitely a reason the combined weight of any four sports journalists in any room at any given time is just over half-a-ton - but not corrupt.
Of course, I've never really understood the difference between writing a story from reading a press release about something like women's golf versus a press release about a $10 million gift, but they never asked me. Instead, my favorite response was, "Fine, pull the sports section and see how many people pick up the paper."
It was a good retort since even the most pro-news types who push stuff like the Triangle Transit Authority in budget meetings will admit that if The Chronicle drew its front page based on high readership, all that would ever grace our cover would be men's basketball and the crossword.
This, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem: People have this subconscious belief that things that cause enjoyment are inferior (take masturbation, for one). So when professionalism kicks in, sports become a second-class subject compared to what people believe should be the heart and soul of the newspaper. It happens at The Chronicle, but it also happens at Duke as a whole.
When I became sports editor, I found that many non-Chronicle people made some of the same arguments, not about sports journalism, but about sports as a whole. They would criticize the University for trying to be an elite intellectual institution and then lowering their standards when admitting scholarship athletes. They also said Duke should devote more resources to academics and less to athletics.
These conversations came to a climax on the national level, when war broke out and CBS was debating whether to air war coverage or their NCAA Tournament games.
In my mind it wasn't even a question. Why wouldn't you air the second-most popular sporting event in the U.S.?
It's the perfect outlet. People watch sports for many reasons. Look at it this way: If I had a bad day in mid-March, I could come home, watch Duke win or a team like Maryland lose, and feel better. Watching a city blow up won't do that.
Sports gives people a controlled sense of achievement and disappointment. It's the adrenaline rush from a buzzer-beater, or the feeling of disappointment when your team battles through 162 games and has to wait until next season. You're upset, but it's not the end of the world. Tomorrow the sun will rise, even if your team isn't playing.
But, as ESPN says, without sports there would be no one to coach, no next season, and of course, a shelf would just be a shelf.
Sports are not perfect; it's so obvious I don't even have to list examples - you've probably thought of five of your own. But they pervade all walks of life without discrimination. And as corny as it sounds, they bring people together, giving them something in common.
And it is this that seems to be lost on so many. Say you are one of those people who prefers a book to the game - I do too sometimes - that's fine. My problem comes when people decide that they are too good, er... intellectual, for sports.
So my last word to the University? Have fun. Intellectualize in moderation - as my favorite professor always says, "universities should by messy places." There's something to be said for being able to spout off the many uses of rhetoric in James Joyce's Aeolus chapter of Ulysses. But there's also something to be said for being able to spout off the Steelers o-line in front of your buddies at a sports bar Saturday afternoon or debating the merits of the last third of Scottie Pippen's career with your roommate until 5:30 a.m.
Forever sport.
Paul Doran is a Trinity senior, and for a few more hours, sports editor. He would like to use this opportunity to make good on those countless bets he made when he was drunk late at night about putting various references to his friends in The Chronicle. He would also like to thank his family, his girlfriend and the Theta Chi class of 2003.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.