You're known primarily for your women's basketball coverage, but you also cover track & field extensively and have covered numerous Olympics. What sports, aside from basketball, do you enjoy covering the most?
I enjoy covering golf, although it makes for very long days. The individual focus in golf and the way people's personalities are expressed - sometimes blatantly and sometimes subtly - on the course usually provide compelling story lines.
The Olympics are exhilarating to cover. Doing that had always been a career goal of mine, so that was really important to me.
Did you set out to cover women's basketball, or did it just end up turning out that way?
Once I decided I would be a sports journalist, which was my freshman year in college, my goal was to cover women's basketball. I love a lot of sports, but that was what I was most passionate about and enjoyed writing about the most. I've covered just about every kind of sport at some time or another, but my main career focus has been and always will be on women's basketball.
You have a unique way of combining pop culture references, obscure trivia, and stream-of-consciousness writing with your in-depth knowledge of the sport. You also have a great ability in your reporting to let the athletes' personalities shine through and make the reader feel as if they were watching the story unfold. Which writers (sports or otherwise) were most influential in developing your writing style?
I can't say I really looked at any one "style" and thought I wanted to be like that. I've always read a lot, and I'm sure every writer whom you consistently read has an impact on you. But I've never tried to write "like" anyone.
My goal is that I want the ESPN.com columns typically to read as if I were talking to you - a conversational style. A lot of my personality is in the columns, for better or worse.
My colleague at The Star, Joe Posnanski, is the best columnist in America, in my view. He's a good friend, I admit that, but I really do think he's the best. He's funny, informative, presents very good arguments and writes about everything. He does not ignore the so-called "minor sports."
I've long admired the work of Steve Rushin and William Nack for Sports Illustrated. Rushin can be as funny as anyone writing sports, and he does it without being mean-spirited. He's just so clever. Nack can write "emotional" stories with such dignity and restraint ... he doesn't "go over the top" and the impact of his pieces is all the more powerful.
There are some good female general sports columnists, among them Selena Roberts at the New York Times, Sally Jenkins at the Washington Post, Christine Brennan at USA Today and Ann Killion at the San Jose Mercury News.
I read all kinds of columnists outside of sports, but my favorites are Molly Ivins, Leonard Pitts Jr. and Ellen Goodman. I realize they are all rather left-leaning. :)
I also wanted to mention the late Erma Bombeck. My life couldn't be any less like hers, but I remember reading her growing up and appreciating how funny and kind-hearted she was. There have not been very many female humor columnists, and she was very good. In part because she was naturally quite talented but also because she was always "herself."
Sports journalism is still highly male dominated, however more women are entering the field. How have the attitudes of your peers, the athletes and readers changed - or not changed - towards female sports writers over the years?
There are some people who won't ever change their views. For the most part, I've had good experiences and I think most people accept women as a part of sports media.
But I've also mostly covered women's sports and the more "obscure" sports, if you will. Those tend to be athletes who are easy to deal with and friendly.
Plus, I didn't become a full-time writer until late in 2001 - before that I always had significant editing duties every place I worked. I was in management for several years as an editor. You face different challenges there.
Generally, people I've worked for and those I supervised were respectful. I think you earn that through working hard. Do you still have to "prove" yourself more as a female in sports to some people? Sure. I just accept that.
I still think we have a major lack of women wanting to become sports writers. Most of the young women I talk to who have some interest in sports media seem to be more inclined toward broadcasting.
The next step will be seeing more women sports editors - what are the current barriers?
I don't know how big the candidate pool is. That's a big part of it. I was in management, as I mentioned, for a long time. I decided I wanted to write full-time.
I think if a woman shows significant editing and leadership abilities in sports - and she really makes it a "goal" to become a sports editor - she can achieve that. But there are a lot of tentacles to that job, and it's very time-consuming.
What kind of collegiality exists between women's basketball writers? How proactive is it within and within the newsroom towards the sport?
There are very few people who "only" cover women's basketball. But there are a group of us who consistently cover it, and we're all very congenial with each other. I don't talk much to those folks unless we happen to be covering the same event, although we do trade information by e-mail and sometimes by phone. We all are willing to help each other.
And we all share similar frustrations about how unevenly the sport is covered on a nationwide basis. But there has been a lot of progress made. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that.
Readers are gradually becoming more "demanding" about what they want in terms of women's basketball coverage, and that's good.
However, most of us have a lot of other responsibilities other than women's basketball. In my case, my primary job is writing for the Kansas City Star about women's basketball, men's and women's golf and Olympic sports. I free-lance for ESPN.com writing about women's basketball.
It would be beneficial to have a significant number of writers focusing exclusively (or close to it) on the sport, both at the college and pro level. That hasn't happened yet. I'm hopeful it will during my career.
How much time do you spend - either from a professional standpoint or just as a fan - keeping up with what's going in women's basketball? Do you have any type of routine you follow?
I think about it every day, often most of the day. It's just a constant part of my life at all times.
I check the various blogs and different message boards to find stories about the sport that people link to. That's a daily process - in season it's several times a day.
I see a lot of college games in person. And I watch a lot on TV. I don't see as many WNBA games in person because I don't live in or even near a WNBA city. But I watch on TV and listen to Internet radio broadcasts several times a week.
I go to as many WNBA games as I can - sometimes in my golf duties for The Star, for instance, I'm in areas where I can also get to a WNBA game. I don't write many WNBA game stories, though, obviously. Mostly columns and features.
Sports writing in general seems to have lost some of its depth and seems to be largely dominated by shallow, smart-alecky, one-liners rather than meaningful coverage or true analysis. Have I just become a cynical fogy or is there in fact a trend away from "true sports reporting"?
Some would surely suggest there is trend away from reporting in general, not just in sports.
It's hard to make generalizations, but I do think 24-hour television news and talk-radio and blogs ... all these things have affected journalism. It's almost become a contest of who can yell the loudest or voice the most vociferous viewpoints.
And, frankly, with blogs and other ways people can get their opinions made "public," it becomes harder define who *is* a journalist. Because of technology, almost anyone can have a "forum" now. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but it just means the standards for what is "journalism" are not what they used to be.
I still think there is outstanding work being done in all forms of journalism. However, it can get lost or ignored because there is so much information out there.
Aside from a passion for sports, what do you think makes a good sports journalist?
Being really interested in other people - what their lives are like, what they think, what motivates them, what they really care about, what they want in life. You need to be extremely curious and drawn to finding out about the essence of people.
Though there has been plenty of coverage of the Penn State/Rene Portland vs. NCLR case, it seems you're the only reporter specifically associated with women's basketball that has responded with an actual opinion. Can you speak to the professional risks that might be involved and to the silence of you fellow reporters and the women's basketball coaching community in general?*
It's hard when one of the parties essentially has not communicated with the media about this topic in anything but "statements" - which has been the case with Rene Portland. She did give a recent interview to USA Today, but she didn't say anything different from what she'd previously said in statements.
As a reporter, you want to be fair. But as a columnist, you need to voice an opinion. I've tried to do both. It's something I've really given a lot of thought to for a long time.
As I mentioned before, not that many people cover women's basketball on a full-time basis. And of those who cover it on any basis, few also have "opinion" forums.
I have that forum on ESPN.com, so I've thought it was a responsibility to try to both "report" on the topic and give an opinion. That's a juggling act that I worry about, to be honest.
I've never felt there was a "professional risk" to writing about this subject. However, it is emotionally draining. Part of that for me is wanting to be sure I am giving both facts and reasonable opinion - but not preaching or insulting people or anything like that.
Also, these are the kinds of topics that produce a lot of reader e-mail, more than I can respond to. I do read every e-mail I get and think about them. Some are very harsh in disagreement, to say the least. But I can't let that stop me from writing about difficult subjects.
As for the "silence" from the coaching community, that's disappointing but not surprising. Coaches in any sport tend not to criticize their colleagues publicly - even when as educators and leaders, they probably feel compelled to speak out. But they don't do it.
Most coaches don't want distractions from the basics of trying to be successful at basketball. They don't want to speak about anything "controversial." And they especially don't want to talk about homosexuality in women's basketball.
There's frequently discussion about the affect blogs have had on politics and the role message boards are playing in the college recruiting game, has the internet had any noticeable affect on professional sports or sports journalism?
I'd refer back to what I said earlier about there being so many "voices" out there. How do you sift through it all and find what's right and what isn't?
Blogs and message boards are both useful and dangerous that way. They are an amazingly ripe breeding ground for rumor and innuendo, but journalists have to pay attention to at least know if there is some kind of hot topic they might be missing.
It takes time to check the various blogs and message boards. That has just become a part of most journalists' working days now. So that's altered how we do our jobs.
How about women's basketball specifically?
Because there is not the same depth of media coverage for women's basketball as for a lot of other sports, blogs and message boards have filled in a lot of information gaps. Most of that is positive.
Probably one of the most frequent complaints heard from fans is their desire for more media coverage of women's basketball. What's your perspective on the quality and quantity of coverage?
I wish it were better, more consistent and more professional. Ultimately, it is a supply-and-demand issue. The more readers and fans demand, the better it will get because newspapers, magazines and Web sites will need to respond to the customer.
Fans of every sport want more coverage. Here at The Star, our Chiefs reporters do what seems like thousands of stories a year to me - I haven't actually counted, I admit - and people still want more. And those fans have economic power as consumers.
So do women's basketball fans, though they are much smaller in number than NFL fans. However, they are becoming more demanding consumers. I respect that. I try to do the best I can, and so do a lot of other committed writers to the sport.
Can you talk about the evolution in the coverage you've seen of female athletes?
In general, there is more professionalism in regard to that coverage - at least in the newspaper business. Don't get me started on sports talk radio, though. There, women's sports often are either treated like they don't exist or ridiculed. A lot of that stuff is in no way "journalism," though. I guess it is "entertainment" to those who find it entertaining.
Overall, I have a lot of criticism of the sports media dealing with women's sports. I have to temper some of it by reminding myself that almost nothing in the world changes as quickly as you'd like it to.
I'll confine myself to the "writing world" for this, since that is my world. Coverage tends to be dictated by the personalities and interests of the people who make up a sports department. You need a sports editor who is committed to professional coverage of women's sports. I've been lucky enough at The Star to have that.
However, the energy has to come from the reporters. You have to care about and be interested in what you are covering. You have to have a passion for it. It really has to be "more than a job" for you.
And you have to respect women athletes - not just their ability. You have to respect that their time and their viewpoints and their "space" is every bit as important as their male counterparts. Same respect goes for the coaches of women's sports.
In other words, you must do your homework as a reporter. That's really the bottom line. Whatever you're covering is worth you caring enough, and respecting it and following the basic procedures of journalism.
Will we ever see a Mechelle Voepel book?
I hope so. That's another career goal.
Kansas City has been mentioned a few times as a possible home for a WNBA team as the new downtown arena progresses. And certainly the attendance for Big 12 women's basketball has been impressive. Do you think a team could be successful there? Could it compete for season ticket dollars with the Royals
(currently second to last in MLB attendance) and potentially an NHL or NBA team?
I'm not sure if Kansas City would adequately support a WNBA team. There is a good infrastructure here of women's sports supporters, but I don't know how that would translate into season-ticket buyers. Someone in marketing research probably could speak to that question with more empirical data than I have.
The enthusiasm that's developed for the Kansas State women's program over the last five years is very genuine and it's going to stay. Kansas has worked very hard the last couple of years in building up support for its program, and I'm optimistic about that because the commitment comes from the top there now with Lew Perkins as athletic director. Missouri State in Springfield is well-known for fan support. So, regionally, this is a good area for women's college basketball.
The other issue, though, is ownership. Anyone aware of the Royals' sad saga for the past several years knows that this city doesn't have many high-rollers interested in owning sports teams or making them successful.
An owner or ownership group of a WNBA team has to be patient and really believe in the league. I think there are people here who can fit that bill and foot the bill, if you will, but it remains to be seen if it will actually happen.
*Question submitted by Helen Wheelock.