The Sporting News

[Angus]

Today I learned that The Sporting News has never, in 124 years of publishing, ever covered any women's sports, ever.

Did anybody else know this?

 

[Hux]

Re: The Sporting News

I did not. I also thought they were out of business.

 

[Angus]

Re: The Sporting News

I've had quite an interesting e-mail exchange over the weekend with Jeff D'Alessio, the editor-in-chief of TSN, after a free copy of the magazine arrived in my mailbox as unsolicited junk mail...

 

[Hux]

Re: The Sporting News

I've had quite an interesting e-mail exchange over the weekend with Jeff D'Alessio, the editor-in-chief of TSN, after a free copy of the magazine arrived in my mailbox as unsolicited junk mail...

junk mail being the operative word eh?

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: The Sporting News

Today I learned that The Sporting News has never, in 124 years of publishing, ever covered any women's sports, ever.

Did anybody else know this?

Didn't!

I guess there won't be a swimsuit issue out any time soon then... eh?

 

[Angus]

Re: The Sporting News

Here's the full e-mail exchange before I burned out on the whole argument. I'm still amazed that the editor-in-chief of "The Sporting News", in the midst of the Winter Olympics no less, apparently has more time to send out e-mails than I do.

My initial missive upon flipping through the free issue:

It was with great interest that I found a free issue of "The Sporting News" in my mailbox today. However, I was disappointed, to say the least. I immediately turned to page 60 to check out the Olympic Hockey preview, only to learn that all eight pages were devoted only to previewing the men's ice hockey at the forthcoming Games. Not a single word in the entire piece even so much as hinted at the fact that women would also be competing for Olympic ice hockey gold in Vancouver.

It's safe to say that you blew it. The issue, as well as the subscription form, is going straight into the trash can.

From Mr. D'Alessio:

Thanks for your opinion. You're the first reader in 2 years to complain that we don't cover women's sports. Never have.

I was confused. I wrote back:

Never have what? Never have covered women's hockey?

Mr. D'Alessio:

Never have covered women's sports. Not in 124 years of publishing. Never get reader complaints about it. We're not AGAINST women's sports - it's just not what our readers come to us for. And if we did cover them, we'd have to take away from something else.

I sent back this observation:

Fortunately, in this digital age a sports fan no longer needs to rely upon the editorial benevolence of somebody such as yourself for information about certain sports and athletes--and the problem of coverage of one sport "taking away space" from another sport has, thankfully, become antiquated.

Still, as the print media industry continues to implode into irrelevance, your decision to stick with a century-old formula is noteworthy.

Mr. D'Alessio:

Give me some data that shows women's pro hockey is a topic a lot of people are interested in. There is none. If it was a bigger deal, we'd cover it. But I don't have the luxury of being everything to everyone.

Irrelevant? Hundreds of thousands still read our mag. Hundreds of millions read newspapers. How many people follow women's pro hockey?

I love a good debate but give me something more than one man's personal preference. And give me a break with the print bashing. So we're not for you. Good luck finding a publication that covers women's hockey, sir.

I responded:

Forget women's ice hockey--I'm be hard-pressed to think of another publication (magazine, newspaper or otherwise) that intentionally ignores all women's sports. Do you have any idea how bizarre that seems, a decade into the 21st century?

Mr. D'Alessio's response:

Don’t have time to debate someone who’s not going to subscribe. We also don’t cover politics or music. It’s not what we do, not who we are. To compare us to newspapers is just silly; you don’t get it. And while SI and ESPN may “cover” women’s sports, they don’t do it very often. The L. Vonn story in SI is the first I can remember in months.

When I finally read this final e-mail, I wanted to write back that, as a paid subscriber of "Sports Illustrated", one could point out that the current issue contained a piece on Mark Johnson, coach of the U.S. women's ice hockey team...but I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

It does make me realize, however, that the internet is as much responsible for the growth of women's hockey as anything else, and that, despite the proclamations of D'Alessio, print publications, especially biweekly sports magazines, have indeed become irrelevant as a result.

 

[gotice]

Re: The Sporting News

Here's the full e-mail exchange before I burned out on the whole argument. I'm still amazed that the editor-in-chief of "The Sporting News", in the midst of the Winter Olympics no less, apparently has more time to send out e-mails than I do.

(......See original post below for the whole quote exchange.....)


It does make me realize, however, that the internet is as much responsible for the growth of women's hockey as anything else, and that, despite the proclamations of D'Alessio, print publications, especially biweekly sports magazines, have indeed become irrelevant as a result.

GO ANGUS excellent post and response to the archaic Mr. D'Alessio and the "Sporting News"

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: The Sporting News

Angus, did you get a chance to pitch my swimsuit issue idea at all...

I'll wait by the phone.

 

[Hammer]

Re: The Sporting News

I guess there won't be a swimsuit issue out any time soon then... eh?

Okay, given that they don't cover women's sports, do you really want to see their idea of a swimsuit issue? We might end up with Tony Stewart in a speedo. [/everyone turn and puke now]