For the most popular of the time, but

For this analysis essay, I decided to use a primary source covering baseball, given its national prevalence and importance at the time. Not only was the sport one of the most popular of the time, but some of the most prominent figures in baseball history such as Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig were in their primes during this time period. Specifically, I chose a New York Times article reporting on game 3 of the 1927 World Series, which included the New York Yankees and the Pittsburgh Pirates. I found this story in the New York Times archives by searching for the game by keyword. The title of the article, written by James R. Harrison, is Yanks Rout Pirates, Ruth Hitting Homer; Pennock Invincible. The content of this newspaper article is, in a brief description, a breakdown of what happened at the game. This breakdown includes details such as the final score, highlights from the game, and attendance and final ticket sales,both of which broke park records. The article goes into great detail describing how specific players performed well, such as Herb Pennock pitching a near flawless game for 7 ? innings, Babe Ruth hitting a homerun into the bleachers, and Lou Gehrig hitting a double and a triple in the seventh inning. In comparison to modern-day sports media, I would say this type of content recapping the game’s high points is no different from today’s sports highlight shows such as SportsCenter or the Scott Van Pelt Show or the sports section of a newspaper. However, as always, it is important to keep things in historical perspective and realize this type of reporting was the closest thing fans had to modern-day sports media, as television had not yet been invented and print was a primary source of news. Though the content of the article is similar to what would be found on a modern sports outlet, I believe the style is substantially different in presentation at some points. Reading the paper, I get a sense of an almost dramatic style of writing with metaphors being used to describe events from the game. For example, Harrison describes Pennock’s pitching with the phrases: “His left arm rose and fell and the ball sailed in as if drawn by an invisible string” and “A slow ball that floated up like a white toy balloon.” This type of style paints a metaphorical picture of how he performed and uses language I would expect to hear verbally from a fan who was at the game explaining to me what happened. Comparing this style to modern sports media, I would say it is different from what would be read in a 2017-18, where descriptions would be more technical and detailed in nature and accompany high resolution photographs of the players, crowds, and critical points in the game. The 1927 piece, however, only had one photograph of spectators and a sketch of a player. In particular, I compared this article to a 2017 New York Times piece covering the Houston Astros’ World Series victory. The 2017 article was, in fact, much more technical in nature and included quotes from players, inning-by-inning summaries, and multiple photographs from the game. Though the style and delivery might differ from modern day sports writing, the content, in general, is relatively similar and includes certain types of details I would expect to read or see in a newspaper or watch on ESPN. I would imagine the difference in style might stem from a difference in English linguistics and potentially even some home team bias for the Yankees, given this story was published in the New York Times.