NY Daily News writer takes a different approach with his Mets lead

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2011/04/19/2011-04-19_mets_are_officially_in_last_place_in_national_league_after_losing_to_lowly_astro.html

I'm not sure what I think about this. On one hand, he's right, the Mets are very much "blah." And frankly, when you write about 162 games a season, you can try to be funny, or fed up, every now and then. On the other hand, isn't it the writer's job to be more descriptive about the misery they see for those who can't watch the game?

Here is the lead (below). If you're going to be critical, please try to be somewhat respectable.

 

I can't ever put into words why I like things or why I don't, but I liked this. I liked how he tied it into the quote about how the pitcher wasn't hurt, he was just blah.

 

It's a great lead. I wouldn't use it every night, but as a changeup it's very effective, and he does provide some game details if you click through and read the full story.

 

I have no problem with it whatsoever.

 

I think I'd like it better in September. In April it made me think, if you're that bored now, God help you in September. I also think you'll leave a few readers wondering why they should bother reading at all if you seem to have nothing to say.

That said, I love when someone breaks away from the standard robotic tedious formula.

 

I felt a sonic boom a bit ago. I think spnited just read this thread.

 

I thought it was blah.

 

I get what he was trying to do, but it left me with the uneasy feeling that, if he has this much open contempt for his subject matter, what does he think of anyone who is interested in and reads about said subject?

Yeah, I guess you could argue that he's saying, "Mets fans, I feel your pain." And that probably makes it OK and perhaps even commendable by tabloid standards.

Jeebus, is it mid-April ALREADY? How many blahs is he going to be able to fit in that late September lede?

 

It felt more like a blog post or a column intro than a lede for even a tabloid. Not that you can't, or shouldn't, mix up your formula and break away once every so often in an 162-game stretch, but maybe a bit *too* casual? And as playthrough/21/holy bull point out, you're 17 games into the sked and already you've got the blahs? And while us newspaper folk liked it (I did as well, to a point), I don't know how Joe Metsfan is going to feel picking up the paper and reading it. Maybe he identifies, maybe he thinks this is proof the Daily News is in the Steinbrenners' pocket.

One thing I'm definitely no fan of: the royal we.

 

We understand.

BTW, anyone know the headline?

 

This. One hundred percent.

If you say, basically, THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY, then why am I reading? And, frankly, you are getting paid to say something about this game. Thousands of times I have sat before a blank screen after a worthless game and typed out, "blah, blah, blah," never have I thought that should actually be my lede. How about some perspective? How about some context? How about the fact it is still early in the season. There was some good stuff in there, but it's buried under an avalanche of "blahs."

This is interesting and well written:

So is this:

Use the material that is presented to you. Write about what happens. Describe it. If it's blah, tell us why it's blah, don't just say, "It's so 'blah' there is nothing to say about it.'" I know he got specific later in the story, but I don't quite know why I'm expected to have the patience to pick through the rubble to get to what actually happened.

And, yeah, the royal "we" just pushed it over the edge for me. Somebody please direct Martino to Chico Harlan's game stories when he was covering Nats for the Washington Post. Not everybody can be Chico, but everyone can learn from how he wrote about a pitiful team.