Injecting opinions in straight news stories

Just to add: We are reporters, not stenographers.

 

I agree with that as well.
But really, what is the difference between calling someone the best and someone else a standout?

 

A big difference if there is no clear winner.

If I say "Hillary and Obama are the frontrunners going into the primary season that includes John Edwards" that's a lot different than saying "Obama is the best candidate."

 

But why not give the reader some proof that Clinton and Obama are front-runners with polls, money raised, etc.?
I believe in giving them something more concrete than just, "I say so."

 

We're talking about the same thing. You're using that information to make a statement. Did someone tell you that? Not likely. You figured it out for yourself. It's what editors call writing authoritatively.

Go back to the Idol story. The writer was no doubt using the reaction of the crowd and the judges to name them the standouts. Whether he points that out or not, he's still doing what you call editorializing ...

It might help if you have a better example, from either a sports or news story.

 

I think a big part of this argument is, indeed, subject matter. I think you can take liberties with a story on American Idol or a basketball gamer that you can't with a straight city council or election story.

News writing and sports writing are, quite often, two very different animals.