Amy Alcott blasts LA Times on coverage of women's golf

Just to make it clear, this letter ran in the middle of almost a page of letters to the editor, a rant about women's golf buried in among rants about Kobe, the Dodgers and whatever else sports fans were bitching about.

 

Unnecessary clarification. The fact remains the same.

 

Too many people, when speaking of women's golf from Alcott's days on the LPGA, probably only know Nancy Lopez's name and maybe a small handful of others. I know Alcott's name as I like golf and follow it enough to know her name. Sportswriters who don't know the names of people from the last 20 years or so might want to brush up on knowing the names of people in the various sports outside of the norm. It's like being a good copy editor, you have to have knowledge of lots of little factoids -- called affectionately as a "garbage brain" -- to help you react to something like this. What if you wind up doing a story some day about women's golf? If Alcott's name deserves any mention in it, even in passing, it looks good on your part that you know what you're talking about in the story.

 

Truth is, the L.A. Times is one of the few papers that still dedicates 3+ columns a week to reader response. Truth is, they printed a highly critical letter in their own space. If they don't do either (like many papers have), we don't have this discussion.
It is a weekly highlight of that section. They reap the benefits of the interaction. Me thinks, others should consider such a platform or expanding the existing one.

 

Very well said.

It also helps you if you're a writer. Why do you think some of the best writers are the way they are? They have an absolute command of their subject matter on call because they take the time to READ, read on every subject pertaining to their craft. None of that happens in a vacuum, folks.

Frankly, I find it borderline inexcusable to be a sports reporter/copy editor and not know who Amy Alcott is and I don't care that it's women's golf we're talking. This isn't Debbie Massey or some other journeywoman we're discussing here. This is a 29-time winner and owner of five major championships, a Hall-of-Famer.

And that's not the golf flack in me speaking either.

 

I hate golf (sorry, birdscribe). I don't understand it, and I sure as heck don't follow it. But I do know who Amy Alcott is. I'm shocked that there are people who don't. Just because it involves women, doesn't mean you should be ignorant of hall of fame players.

 

Sorry folks. I must be a horrible, horrible person and really, really bad at my job just because I don't know who Amy Alcott is. Maybe I'll turn in my resignation today.

Thank you, SportsJournalists.com nation, for this wonderful enlightenment.

 

To be fair, a paper can look really, really bad if, say, someone like Amy Alcott should die in an accident or something and no one on the desk has a clue who she is.

Rule of thumb: If the oldest person on your desk has no recollection of men walking on the moon, the chances of things like that happening are pretty high.

 

True, BTE, but wouldn't even a young person with no clue (but worth his or her own salt) at least:

a) Figure AP sent the obit for a reason;
b) Read the obit and sort of figure it out after seeing her accomplishments;
c) At that point find the closest golf veteran and get a clue;

?

 

Spot-on.

 

The bigger papers test for ability to edit rather basic common knowledge (like who Amy Alcott is and why she matters) because they presume the candidates care enough about their slice of the world to know that. And getting defensive because you don't is weak, the kind of response not looked upon favorably by hiring editors.