Chris Jones on "Animals," his Zanesville Zoo massacre story

Chris Heath apparently is a nemesis who must be dealt with. He has a Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Heath

However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jones

Not sure if any of these are the Chris Jones in question here. If not, some of you boys best get cracking.

 

Late to the party but...I'm not sure I'll even read this story. The news coverage at the time was so sad for me, I couldn't stand more than a second or two. It really hit me hard.

Sometimes, there are stories that come along that you just have to completely ignore for your own sanity.

 

Nack was one of Sports Illustrated's stars for about 30 years and has written many critically acclaimed books, so he was definitely talking about long form. The example Nack talked most about was his story on Hurricane Carter, which was adapted into the movie.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003662/index.htm

(Of course that story starts with the time element in clause form.)

 

I was thinking about this all yesterday, and I think my choice would be the story of Terry Thompson. You'd have to fictionalize because you need to explain why he did it, and it certainly doesn't sound as though anyone knows exactly why he did it. I could see the movie starting with him pour gas on the papers and methodically cutting open the fences, then having the title credits, then flashing back to when whatever the event is that they decide to start the chain of events with.

 

Neither of these strike me as very good analogies. Unless you consider convincing people not to talk to potential competitors an essential component of good reporting, this is more akin to asking Michael Jordan if he'd prefer to play an opponent that has one hand tied behind his back. If competition just means winning for the sake of winning, I guess maybe you'd take someone up on that. But if you compete because you really want to prove you're a better reporter and writer, it'd seems like you'd want to have an equal playing field by removing as many of the exogenous variables as possible. You interview whoever you want, I interview whoever I want, and we'll see who is really the best.

 

I would start it where Jones did, with the guy getting his horse. I would also focus it on the protection of the people of Zanesville, not about Thompson.

 

That outlook is the product of our press conference culture where information typically is doled out to the masses. Acquiring the information is just taken for granted, but historically the information is what has separated writing quality. A thousand of us could have sat at home, watched NFL Network post game and written a Super Bowl gamer that matched all the others in mood and drama, because the reporting is catered to us. Wetzel was different.

This was a return to the old days of valuing the information itself. I don't think it's all that unusual, either. The big boys -- WSJ, NYT, LAT -- when they are being fed a scoop by an activist or whistle-blower or whatever, they will tell that person that if they see this story anywhere ahead of time, they will spike their version and the person won't get the biggest platform for their issue.

 

No. I did not argue they must receive equal information. I argued they should have equal access to sources if they really want to prove themselves. Presumably, they would demonstrate their reporting ability because they'd ask different questions and make different observations.

 

Why should it be about proving yourself or the thrill of competition? This is the real world. The goal is to win.

 

Don't give corporate any ideas!

 

But this begs the question: Why is winning the goal? People would remember Michael Jordan much less fondly if he won his titles playing against one-handed opponents. Would his competitive nature still compel him to take on that competition anyway because he wants to "win"? Or would his competitive nature compel him to turn it down because merely winning isn't enough? I can't speak for Jordan, but I know I personally enjoy victory much more when up against opponents competing at the top of their game.

 

Just to throw in on the Jordan analogy, I'm assuming he enjoyed the 1991 title as much as he did the other five, even though the Lakers would have had a great chance at victory if not for the fact James Worthy was totally hobbled by a sprained ankle suffered in the WCF, which crippled him the whole series until he sat out Game 5, which Scott also sat out.

Also, the Pistons are probably fine with their 1989 title and savor it as much as the 1990 one, even though Scott missed all four games, Magic only played one and a half, yet the Lakers still had fourth-quarter leads in the final three games.

-Still bitter Lakers fan

Back to regularly scheduled programming.