elizabeth merrill

There's always a reason for barbecuing.

 

this just seems like a mean thing to say. is this board also about being mean just for the sake of being mean?

 

I don't have a mean bone in my body, but geez lo peez ... this is how our business works. If you write something, it's going to be scrutinized, picked apart and analyzed - all for varying reasons.

 

Welcome, "newbie." Weak.

 

I read the story, including the sentences in question, and didn't pause, didn't scratch my head, didn't wonder what she meant. Good story. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Here's my two cents for what they're worth. There's much too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this board for my tastes, too much criticizing without always knowing the whole story for my taste.

I basically don't read the threads about errors in SI or at ESPN. And I get annoyed when a thread (like this one) turns into criticism of how a story was written or the choice of structure in a sentance.

Maybe it's because I generally try to be a fairly positive person. Maybe it's because I make mistakes at times. Maybe it's because I've had editors both edit errors into stories and save me from mistakes.

The reality is that we operate in this business for the most part without a net. We write the rough draft of history, not the final version. And it's pretty easy to anonymously rip without really knowing how a story came together, how it was edited an what the deadline situation was.

Maybe my attitude is the result of having spent most of my career on a beat and having written extensively on deadline. Maybe it's because I've been the guy on a beat who other papers have tried to gang up on. Sometimes things don't come together as you'd like. Sometimes you're juggling a bunch of stories. Sometimes you're juggling work and real life.

I guess my feeling is this: If people spent as much time working on their own skills and their own lot in life as they did anonymously ripping the work of others, maybe they would be better off and not quite so bitter.

And to file the standard declaimer: I'm not Elizabeth and I've met her exactly once.

Rant over.

 

Often.

 

I read the story. Didn't notice the blip when I read it the first time.

But I don't get the sensitivity. Aren't our stories scrutinized every day - by readers, editors, ourselves? I would expect a board of professionals to scrutinize stories even more than the average reader who is just happy that you spelled their name right.

Why is that a negative? Because of the "tone" in which it was written? It could have been much worse. I've heard worse in newsrooms among people who know one another. Try toughening that epidermis a bit and reap the benefits of an open mind.

 

I believe the dabbing of eyes and the opening of questions were meant to be two events which were unrelated to each other, except that they were both caused by speaking about her husband. The dabbing of eyes does not cause questions, especially since the writer is conveying that a phone conversation about the husband would lead to the questions.
"Oh crap, the phone's ringing. If they ask about my husband, I'll start to cry as the difficult questions come."

I didn't have n issue with the construction. I did think some of the writing was a little too much, but it's not like this was an inappropriate story for a writer to spread their wings. That's my view of it, for what that's worth.

 

Elizabeth Merrill may be the nicest person in the world and a hard worker and the greatest thing to happen to journalism since, well, Jemele what's-her-name, but this story was a huge swing-and-a-miss to me. It was cotton candy. This story needs to be reported with a much harder edge.

You just can't write a touchy-feely story about the effect of a freakish accident on two lives (actually, one) if you don't have the voice of the guy who swung the bat. She, or her editors, should have decided to hold the story until Sanchez was ready to talk. Yes, I'm holding her to a high standard, but that's life in the big city.

That's one problem. Another significant problem was the lead. How does she know these two men hadn't already talked about the similarities in their lives? One man is dead, the other did not talk to her.

 

I think Elizabeth Merrill has done a fine job with ESPN.com, but I really didn't care for her work at the KC Star. Ivan Carter, the Chiefs guy before her, was dynamite, and Jason King was great covering the Kansas Jayhawks and will do well with the Chiefs.

 

She's an outstanding writer. She was great in Omaha. She was great in KC and it's no surprise she's doing well at ESPN.com...

I'm with ACCguy on the error threads... I remember when I was breaking into this business and one of the other interns was quite arrogant about pointing out an editing error made in one of his stories. It was a small error, one that 99.99 percent of the readers would have missed. But that didn't prevent this intern from humiliating a veteran copy editor in front of the rest of the staff.

At the end of the summer the copy editor pulled the intern to the side and handed him five sheets of paper. On them were all of the errors in his copy that had been fixed by that editor. He also mentioned that none of those errors were ever pointed out to anybody else on staff. The kid was dumbstruck. I viewed this from a distance. I just saw the exchange and could tell that the intern was visibly rattled.

A few hours later I found said intern at a bar where he clearly had been crying. He told me what had happened and told me that his arrogance was going to finish him in this business...

Needless to say it didn't... He's at the absolute top of the profession and is as humble now as he was cocky almost 15 years ago...