Dear Sports Illustrated-
I have had a subscription since I could read. I’ve kept dozens of memorable issues from championship covers of my favorite teams, to galvanizing topics such as sports after 9/11, the steroid era and other social issues of importance. My favorite thing, when I was younger, was getting your season preview issues and seeing the power rankings of players, seeing who signed with different teams and who you predicted to win. However lately I have been upset with the topics you’ve chosen to cover and those you haven’t.
The season previews no longer have player rankings and you’re predictions have become so ghastly it’s at times unbearable to look at. I stopped reading ESPN the magazine because the level of journalism was relatively low and the magazine focused on stories that I really had no interest in (I.e. Tebow).
In the most recent issue I received had a MLB playoff preview. Being a life long San Francisco Giants fan I was extremely disappointed to have skimmed through and noticed you omitted any mention of them at all. Even in 2010 and 2012 when they won the world series your analysis pointed squarely against the Giants. Not that this was any different than many other publications but at least your journalists wrote with attention to detail and told a story rather than just report like a newspaper.
I miss the stories where you broke stories rather than cover them. No mention of Goodells shoddy news conference, hardly any mention of other recent controversial topics, instead…another article on Kobe Bryant.
If you decide to return to what made your magazine so great I will renew my subscription once again but right now I’m not. I used to receive a renewal every Christmas as a gift from my parents and growing up I now wish I can do the same to my own son some day…
Best Regards- Brennan Sellers
Love this letter. Brennan and I talked about SI subscriptions a couple of weeks ago, and I think we feel much the same--that the magazine offers us far less than it once did.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind previews that wind up being horribly, appallingly wrong in their projections. Those are actually kind of fun to return to. But I did notice by the end of my avid readership that SI did far less to provide thorough, considered analysis of all the teams, instead highlighting whoever they thought would win the division etc, and minimizing everyone else. Those previews got shorter, more filled with multiple pieces rather than anything comprehensive, and thus far less satisfying.
I haven't read SI a ton lately, so I don't know how fair the comparison with ESPN Magazine is, but I do know that ESPN was always dentist-office reading for me--somewhat amusing in small doses, but not worth much attention. I think that shallow entertainment is its purpose anyway.
I do wonder if part of the issue (ha!) with SI is a medium that's in transition. SI does break stories, but does it online. With the magazine, they face a quandary--how to maintain a readership when you're getting them news a week late. Certainly that provides opportunities to do some really in-depth investigative reporting, thorough individual profiles, creative debates on hot topics, maybe some fiction, etc. But instead it seems to be driving a devotion to tired topics (Kobe Bryant, for instance) that editors hope will have a broad readership because they have in the past.
Anyway, I do hope they iron it out and the magazine persists in some form. I'm old school, I know, but long-form journalism has its merits.
newest issue had no story on the giants upsetting the nationals....also every single writer baseball writer picked both the nationals and the dodgers to win...so maybe they are just bitter. peace out SI
ReplyDelete