Should JV results be included?

I generally try not to get too sanctimonious on these forums, but yes, we are gatekeepers, and to some small, meaningless extent, decisions on whether or not to report JV scores or whatever requires some level of news judgment. Of course, reader interest is an important consideration. But if "we're not gatekeepers" then we might as well say "we're not journalists." That's bullshit. News judgment is what separates journalism from flackage.

 

Yes, let's remember we're not the school newsletter.
Let's do what I just did today during baseball...walk right on past the JV field to get to the varsity one.

 

That is your news judgment. Including 2 column inches of JV agate is ours, and it has always worked for us.

 

no gripe if it actually works in your area...I've tried in the past for something similar (short recaps) and it has never sustained itself.

 

I hope I didn't sound like an ass.

(I am an ass, I just hope I didn't sound like one).

Somehow, it has worked over the years and through time immemorial. We do occasionally get complaints from people (parents) who want varsity-caliber coverage for subvarsity sports, but in my experience, they usually understand the fact that JV athletes get full coverage when they are varsity athletes.

The bottom-of-the-roundup method has a negligible impact from an output standpoint (meaning a small patch of agate-sized JV information has never squeezed out any more worthy material, that I know of -- nor would I allow that to happen).

There's a chance that, over the years, we've missed a varsity call or two while speaking with a JV or C-squad coach on the phone. But that doesn't argue against the cram-a-bit-o'-agate-into-the-roundup method.

I can think of a few actual instances where our receptivity to very brief junior varsity input has led to quality copy at the varsity level, and can imagine numerous hypothetical scenarios where that may be the case, too. Never hurts to build a depth of rapport with subvarsity coaching staffs or develop familiarity with the pipeline of athletes we'll eventually cover.

To each their own.

 

Whether or not you're covering JVs is in itself a very small, meaningless, journalistic decision with probably little to no impact on the overall product. It's a journalistic decision though, and reporting JVs just to placate dumb parents is a cop out. That's all I'm saying.

 

We're sports journalists. We've already taken two steps down the road to reader apeasement hell when we started covering high-school sporting events instead of doing investigative reporting on the local water quality. A third step isn't going to be the line between "journalist" and "not a journalist."

 

I agree that if that were the reason we reported JV scores, it would be a bad journalistic decision -- or a reasoning process antithetical to considerations of journalism.

I completely agree.

But that isn't why we report JV scores. ("We" as in my department. Not the royal "we").

We report them because we can afford to do so without hurting the product, without wasting resources, without compromising productivity and because there are people -- some of them dumb, solipsistic, narcissistic, vicariously living parents; some of them intelligent; some of them innocent and pure of heart; some of them fanatical and obsessed -- who have an interest in subvarsity scores, even if it is merely in passing. It adds value, albeit neglible, to the product. It doesn't, to the best of my and my editorial predecessor's judgment, detract in any tangible or principled way.

Occasionally, it can improve the coverage that we feel matters: Varsity. It can provide insight that becomes enterprise.

And still, it is a"very small, meaningless" decision, as you said.

But it is a decision, and not one influenced by the vicissitudes of parental insanity.

 

And that (attitude) is why you fail.

 

This is one of the reasons I love this board. Zimbabwe, you bring up intelligent, reasoned points, and points that could help a relatively small daily that doesn't cover as many schools so it's easier to keep track of things.

We don't go out of our way to get sub-varsity results, but we invite people to submit. As a result, we found out about a freshman basketball team that went 24-0 (the frosh typically played on the junior high or secondary courts at the same time as the varsity games) and, at the very least, we have names and faces from a photo we ran in our sports briefs. Will it immediately help next season? Probably not. Will it be a point of emphasis in 2 or 3 years if the varsity squad has a resurgence? You bet your ass.

 

That attitude is why I'm happy while so many in this business spend a life on frustrated bewilderment as to why the rest of the world doesn't see them the way they see themselves.

 

I'm not frustrated at all. I just understand that if a story is worth writing, it is worth writing correctly. Just as a brief or a result should be written correctly. If it is being published, it can have an impact on my reputation and that of the media outlet I work for. Even if it is just one reader who sees something done badly.

You, on the other hand, think it is okay to doctor facts in print to suit what you think the public wants to read.

And I'm not the one who walked away from a job over a disagreement with an editor. That was you.

Again, your attitude and lack of journalistic ethics are why you fail.