Third in a 10-part series

Getting paid to watch baseball and then telling thousands of people what you saw or what you think (or both) -- how did Geoff Baker and Richard Griffin luck into such great gigs?

Okay ... first, there's a story -- perhaps apocryphal -- about the kid who wants to be a sports writer. So he tracks down the local paper's lead columnist and tells him "I want to be a sports writer. What should I do?" The veteran newsie asks the kid "Why do you think you want to do this?"

When the kid replies, "Because I love sports," the grizzled vet laughs and says "No, no, no. You have to love writing."

"Everybody Loves Richard"?
Think these guys are simply "paid to watch baseball"? Nothing could be farther from the truth, no matter what many fans may think about the job of the sports writer. It's not the crazy, carefree, wacky life of lovable sports columnist Ray Romano of Everybody Loves Raymond fame.

"In fact," says Griffin, "I'm always thinking about what to write about next. The average reader does not understand the 24-hour-per-day attention that must be paid to what might become the best column idea. It can consume you. I wish I had an agenda."

Still, he does hear about getting "paid to watch baseball," from the least expected of sources. "The person who says that the most is my wife, Debbie," admits Griffin. "It's because I have more hours at home in this job. When I was in PR with the Expos, I worked seven days a week, with spring training and making all the road trips. Now, as a columnist, I'm home all the time, so she figures I'm not working."

Baker hears it too, but says, "I never get sick of [hearing] it, because I'm a big history buff and realize how lucky we are to see [history] unfolding in a sports context -- and travel to so many great cities. I feel like I have homes in many places around North America."

Warning: No Fans Allowed
"The big price though," warns Baker, "is you don't get to be a fan."

He explains, "You get paid to offer realistic, often critical analysis and then, unlike sports fans -- or editors, for that matter -- have to walk into a clubhouse every day and face the music from players, who, quite frankly, could tear you apart physically. That's the type of daily stress level people don't really understand until they experience it firsthand."

Clubhouse stress is one aspect of the job that Baker and Griffin share -- though Baker's work requires more trips to the clubhouse than Griffin's does. In fact, many readers likely think Baker's primary job as beat reporter and Griffin's primary job as columnist are not only similar, but pretty much identical.

After all, they're both writers and they both have photos and bylines appearing in the same section of the same paper -- in some cases, on the same page -- nearly every day. This, as the great Canadian media guru Marshall McLuhan was fond of saying, is confusing the medium with the message. Do Peter Jennings and David Letterman have the same job just because they both appear on television?

So what are these two jobs all about? Ideas for possible comparisons cascaded from the members of the ZLC.
- "Is it like being a college professor, teaching fans about the game?"
- "A court reporter? Just passing on the facts?"
- "Professional devil's advocate -- challenging the team's authority to sell papers?"
- "Research scientist? Breaking down and analyzing everything?"

Columnists: "Try to Write for Everyone"
"The columnist's job is less like that of a college professor, because a prof knows he knows more than his students. I cannot assume the same thing," says Griffin.

"I [write for] a very much larger spectrum and therefore what Batter's Box [readers] may think is oversimplification, my aunt in Scarborough may appreciate," he explains. "I try to write for everyone."

While dismissing the columnist-as-court-reporter idea, Griffin latches on to the last two comparisons -- devil's advocate and research scientist. "However, 'challenging' [the team's authority] may not be the right word," he clarifies. And clarification is part of his job, he says. "I think [we're] clarifying, interpreting and cutting through the corporate smoke and mirrors to tell fans what's really happening."

But journalism is a business, and part of that business is getting and keeping readers. "The worst thing that can happen to a columnist is to have people read one paragraph and then turn the page," says Griffin. "Therefore, you want a good lead. Reading the whole column is the main response I'm looking for."

Beat Writers: Now for Something Completely Different
"The primary function [of our job] is to inform ... I don't think we make news," says Griffin. "I think we find news."

Baker, whose beat reporter job by definition allows for less subjectivity in his writing than Griffin's columns contain, takes the clarification a step further. "Unlike news reporters, our job is to be both informative, yet highly entertaining at the same time," he explains, so there is some additional "subjective leeway," as he puts it.

"Which is why the best writers tend to be in the sports section," he says unabashedly. "But the journalistic premise is the same. You don't overlook news to spare the team grief. Not when reporters are [literally] dying to get the story out in places like Iraq. That's just taking the easy way out and insulting to reporters everywhere."

The job of the reporter, says Baker, is "a little bit of all four" of the comparisons made by the ZLC.

"You always try to teach folks something they didn't know when you write a story or else, what's the point?" says the former Concordia journalism instructor. However, he notes, "I've taught ... and [this job] is far more patience-testing."

The "court reporter" approach is better in some sections of a newspaper than others, says Baker. "Just passing on the facts is good if you're breaking into the business, covering a town council meeting," he says. But in sports writing you're expected to give more, since many fans are highly educated about facts and stats."

But it bears repeating -- journalism is a business, and part of that business is getting and keeping readers.

"The best measure of whether to trust a paper [is if] we 'get it wrong' and keep getting it wrong," says Baker. "Then readers will stop paying attention." Baker believes he and his Star colleagues do okay in that regard. "I think if you've read our stuff over the years, we've gotten more news breaks than any other paper in Toronto on the big stuff and have almost always been bang-on," he says.

Action, Reaction and Inter(net)action
And the writers do hear about it -- almost immediately -- if they are pereceived as "getting it wrong," especially over the past decade as the Web and e-mail have made the traditional "Letter to the Editor" so much easier to write and send.

"The Internet makes everything much more immediate," says Baker. "It allows instant feedback from fans on your work, whereas before, you would have to wait several days for letters to pour in. I enjoy that feedback, negative or positive."

Negative or positive? "The worst thing is to write a story you felt was good and have nobody notice," explains Baker. And Griffin seems to share this attitude, saying, "I get good and bad mail often on the same column, which to me means it must be balanced." It's better to hear from both sides than to hear nothing at all, then.

"At the same time, you can't be totally influenced by what can be a mob-like mentality of fans because you are getting paid to look at things differently and more objectively," continues Baker. The most prominent examples of such influence, he says, are trade rumours. "It doesn't take much to start a rumour these days and sports reporters have to be far more vigilant at looking into what makes sense and what doesn't."

However, he admits, "This doesn't always happen. Too often, folks throw stuff against a wall and hope something sticks, as my pal Jim Fregosi never tires of saying -- in language a bit more colourful."

Sports Writers Can't Be Everybody's Friend
Speaking of colorful language, a fair amount of that type of verbiage has been hurled Baker's -- and especially Griffin's -- way on Web sites like this one, particularly for their perceived lack of warmth toward the SABR-driven "Ricciardi Way." [Editor's Note: This subject will be addressed more fully in tomorrow's installment of this series.] The vitriol has not gone unnoticed.

"Sure, it affects us," admits Baker. "We're only human. [But] there are times when we are looking at an issue one way and an alternative viewpoint may help us see things differently."

For instance, Baker says, "I know that I came to appreciate the value of OPS in measuring the game's top hitters simply by reading arguments on sites like this one." Well ... the more rational and less vulgar of those arguments, anyway.

As Griffin says, "Wait a minute. It's all right for a very public fan Web site to have contributors label certain writers as 'idiots' and 'morons' and to start a write-in campaign to certain newspapers to have someone fired, but it's not right for anyone to disagree and to criticize SABR. Hmm."

The business of being a sports writer is not for the thin-skinned, then? "You shouldn't get into this business if your goal is to be everybody's friend," says Baker.

Nonetheless, he adds, "I have come up with story ideas by reading [Batter's Box]. This is a very busy job. We don't always have time to cover all the angles. It's nice to check up on the pulse of the public and see what they are talking about. There is always room for an exchange between readers and writers. After all, we are writing for you guys."

But "you guys" represents a wider spectrum than most readers imagine, and it can be difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to respond in such a way that everyone is satisfied.

Griffin explains, "I would hope that I respond to what readers write and say. But ... there are many different types of readers with many different interests. I use [Batter's Box] as one gauge and I use my aunt in Scarborough, with her nine kids and 20-something grandchildren and her love of baseball and her Christian beliefs and her faith in the basic goodness of all people as another."

Baker concurs, saying, "The thing is, not all readers are as informed as others, so that's something we have to weigh when we write."

More than that, though, he says, "We also have to keep in mind that it isn't our job to mirror the thinking of our readers. We have greater access to the team and its inner workings than they ever will and see things they don't understand."

In fact, says Baker, "There have been postings to Web sites that are entirely wrong and could be cleared up in an instant, but they may otherwise seem logical to those not 'in the know.' So, we do have to write from an informed perspective -- and one that will stand the test of time, not simply make us popular for a week or two."

The bottom line, though, says Griffin, is "I have already changed some of my methods and perceptions in response to the Internet age ... it's [more] interactive."

Which, at the very least, leads to opportunities for stories like this one.

The Byline and the Bottom Line
"I do strive very hard to treat the team fairly," says Baker, though he acknowledges "unfairness" is one of the primary criticisms hurled the way of most sports writers. "Few things are worse than a jaded reporter or columnist who overcompensates on the negative side under the guise of being 'objective,' he says.

Objective or not, sports writers can certainly be pragmatic, of course. "Let's face it, I would benefit tremendously from book deals, extra freelance work, paid radio and television appearances and an easier work environment if the Jays ever did contend," explains Baker. "To suggest I, or any beat reporter, wouldn't want that is plain wrong."

Still, says Baker, "I don't want the Blue Jays inviting me home for dinner, helping me write books, or giving me some bogus lifetime achievement award 20 years from now for being a friendly promoter of the team who never questions its party line. Our readers are not that stupid and should not be treated as such."

So, you still want to be a sports writer? Okay, then.

Keep an eye on the bottom line. Develop a thick skin. Forget about being a fan -- or being friends with everyone. In fact, brace yourself for the daily e-mail and blog postings that demand your scalp on a shovel. Sharpen your peripheral vision to keep a clubhouse eye out for those players who "could tear you apart physically." Be informative, entertaining, objective -- and be sure to "get it right." Every time.

Oh, and be sure that you love sports ... and that you love writing.

Next: Hey ... Are These Guys Stat Geeks?