is that, compared to many other fields of journalism, its readers expect to get the news and analysis in the same package. It's possible to break the news only once ("Benitez has signed for Everton"), and after that very second, only a proper analysis ("The Battle of Power at GP") becomes interesting. Anything else will be space fillers.
Journalism about politics is so much easier, because although there's the fact (Brexit happened), the news can be about propositions and arguments, too (Brexit is the best/worst thing since X), and this requires proper analysis, the news itself isn't the news.
When you're reading a magazine like the Scottish Nutmeg, you don't expect to get the news, but (hopefully) well-written articles about the history, personalities and the various phenomena of the game (goodness me, there are even poems there!). And when you're reading news about the stock market, only this moment matters, because any analysis is focusing on the immediate future. In sports journalism it is very difficult to combine these two, especially nowadays when the lion's share of it is online, and every story is dependent on whether there is enough to make people click on the headline.
for 6 months then binned it off.
There are lots of boring, obvious, space filler articles. In amongst them are one or two longer, insightful really good pieces but I'd say its one in every 10, if that. The rest is meeting a required quota.
I subscribed on the back of the good articles I'd seen posted but there just aren't enough of them to warrant a regular payment.
In my opinion anyhow.
WRT the comments on journalism below, has anyone subscribed to The Athletic?
I canít say anything Iíve read (on Everton) has been that insightful, but not being a subscriber Iím not best placed to judge.
I know - like most journalists - itís sometimes about filling space, but is it better than the rest?
Anyone with a view about Spanish/Italian sports coverage on the same lines & the quality of that?
Wondering whether we expect too much.