by Ty Schadt, Sports Editor
For sports journalists, press conferences can be stressful. For starters, the people they are interviewing are there out of obligation, not personal desire. Therefore, cooperation from those being interviewed is never guaranteed. Secondly, it’s very crowded and can be hard to get your own question in before someone else shouts over you. However, a new source of stress and hyperactive self-consciousness has risen from conversations about journalistic professionalism on social media: to refer to the coach as “Coach” or call him by his first name?
The discussion was stirred when Dan Katz, a writer for the popular sports blog Barstool Sports, asked former University of Louisville head coach Rick Pitino a question that began with the phrase “Coach—.” Many Twitter users responded to the footage by claiming Katz was being unprofessional and violating an unwritten rule of journalism — always call a coach by his first name. “I didn’t know you played for him?” wrote one user.
However, many defended Katz. “Calling someone coach before you interview them is a sign of respect for their position,” claimed another user. Someone else compared it to addressing an instructor as “Dr,” a title that has been earned and ought to be respected.
In my limited experience with press conferences and interviews, I have referred to coaches as “coach.” I view it is a sign of respect and common courtesy, especially coming from an amateur like myself. If I walked into a press conference with Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski and asked, “Mike, could you explain why you took Grayson Allen out with five minutes left?” I would expect him to laugh at me.
Perhaps I would feel comfortable calling a coach by his first name if we had a relationship established through years of interviews, questions and stories. But under any other circumstance, I’ll be sticking with “Coach,” regardless of what Twitter trolls deem professional.
Graphic by Ty Schadt
