Is this letter out of line?

As I journalist, I absolutely 100% agree that you run the picture that tells the story, good, bad or indifferent.

But I'm inclined to let people who complain — politely — some slack, because they aren't journalists and don't share the same values journalists do.

They don't care about journalistic ideals, they care about kids looking good.

We as journalists, of course, disagree.

But I don't begrudge them their feelings, as long as they aren't jerks about it.

 

Yes.

 

You want a new business story, you get a story when your business fails in three months.

There are plenty of examples of papers putting out a rah-rah product.

 

I'll say it again.

If you're covering that game and your photographer comes back with THOSE photos and you DON'T run them?

Well, you sir, are successfully creating a solid yearbook. Maybe you can see if the booster club will fund your freelance bill while you're at it. Because what you're not doing is telling the story of that game. What you're not doing is providing your readers with the story of what happened, just what you think they would like to believe happened. And what you're certainly not doing is producing a newspaper. That's for sure.

 

Thanks for the lecture. I'm sure your paper isn't a yearbook.

 

Our business editor does stories when local businesses shut down.

 

The lecturing is funny because four years ago, schieza wouldn't have run them

 

I don't agree with the letter in general, but here's one part I do agree with:

I think it is worth considering that these are high school kids. Does that mean we don't run the fumble shot? No, but it could influence where it plays. Personally, I think the emotion shots are much more telling and capture the moment more than action. You'd get flack for running some of them, and honestly, I'd steer away from some because I don't want the package to become about one guy crying; I want it to be about the team's emotions. Sometimes a shot of one guy can capture that; sometimes it can't. I loved this one:



and could see it as main art on a page, but I could also see this:



work with the right headline. Would it be as good? Probably not, and I'd probably argue we run the first picture as the package. But you can still tell the story in the package without playing up certain things, and I think it's worth thinking about the kids before we automatically say, "Well, this tells the story. Run it."

Of course, I come from a strange position. A few years ago, we did a story about the growth of high school linemen, how they're getting much heavier. The writer did an awesome job, analyzing decades worth of All-State rosters to show the change. I ran a shot of a couple of kids from one of our local schools at practice. One kid's stomach was hanging out of his jersey. We didn't identify either by name but did have the school in the cutline. The photo ran and the kid, who barely even played, was mortified. In hindsight, for anyone who knew the team, identifying him wasn't that hard. He ended up quitting the team and thought about transferring. As a big guy myself who was big in high school, too, I get how he feels. I wish we had run a different photo or didn't identify the school or something else, but my thought process was that the photo told the story better than anything else we had. Of all the things I wish I could do differently in my career, that's the one I wish I could change the most because it affected someone so deeply.

I know that's a different situation. One is a feature package and another is a live game. But I still think it's worth thinking about how the kid would feel before running a photo. Most of these kids, despite what we want to believe, aren't playing to get their name in the paper. Sure, it's nice, but that's not why they're doing it. They don't care if they get their name in print. They're out there to have fun, in some cases to try to earn a scholarship. I'm not saying you don't mention the mistakes, I'm just asking what's wrong with considering them. If the fumble was a pivotal moment, sure you run the picture, but maybe it goes inside or is secondary. Putting too much emphasis on one mistake in a game that sounds like several were made makes it look like that moment was the decisive moment.

My point is, I think there's room to report the news and not make a kid feel like crap. Sometimes feelings will get hurt. Can't be helped. But I don't think it diminishes the news or our jobs to think about the players, who are high school kids, before we decide to run something.

 

Thinking about the kids is fine. And, yes, we can probably all admit to treating one story or one team or one situation with kid gloves but the above example?

When you've got captivating art like that (Ok, maybe I'm just jealous), you run it. You can think about how it is going to make the kids in question feel but it shouldn't be even 10% of your decision when planning out your section.

Your job is to tell a story. Those photos do a tremendous job of just that and all I know is that if I were that photog, and those were the pictures I got, and I saw a generic action shot used as the main art piece, there better be a better reason than "I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings".

And to the above poster who thanked me for the lecture, you're welcome. I also have great lectures on the pros and cons of gel pens in the field, the benefits and drawbacks to internet coverage and the use of pumpkins as main art. If you act now, I'll even throw in my "How to do a proper Year in Review" section lecture for free. (Well, you pay the shipping and handling, of course).

 

The game was televised on the regional sports net, in high def. The same channel that carries local professional sports teams. In other words, a high-visibility network.

Never see a cry to edit the emotion out of the television broadcast.

 

Why would you run a photo that's not as good?

The kid feels bad already. He fumbled. The team lost. There's no taking that back.

I do agree that high school kids should be treated differently and are at virtually every paper.

For most that means not bashing a kid for throwing interceptions or fumbling or making a mental error.

That doesn't mean you don't include that in a game story or run a photo of it.

If a losing QB passed for 300 yards and four touchdowns but threw five interceptions, how do you gloss that over?

 

That was the story of this game. the losing team outgained the winning team by nearly 200 yards, but turnovers cost the losing team the game. Plus it was played in one of the worst storms to hit Southern California in years. Other factors contributed to the loss. Centennial played a great game, had a chance to win the game with a field goal. Field conditions made the FGA extremely difficult.
It was a tough loss. And Fox Sports West had no problem showing every turnover and the tears that followed.