Small Colorado daily draws flak for football photo

I don't call it right or wrong. There's no moral component to it, except that imbued into it by people who take themselves too seriously and wonder why the world, the beancounters and their paychecks don't agree.

Of course it's the path of least resistance. In the same way that someone working in a restaurant not intentionally messing up orders is the path of least resistance. Generally, when you are selling a product, you want as little resistance from your customers as possible.

Yes, people would react differently to an important news story. Sports gets its own section for a reason: Because it's different and needs to be treated differently.

And yes, I know that the theory is that if we don't hamstring ourselves with silly standards at all times, readers might not take us seriously when an important story come up. But guess what: They don't take us seriously anyway.

 

So it's OK to tackle an important story that may put a school or coach in a bad light and put it in the news section.

But someone other than a sports writer should do it because a sports writer is not a real journalist?

Writer, I think there's a fly in my soup.

 

That's up to the newspaper. But most newspapers generally do set things up so that sports and news are separate, and if there's a coach abusing players, you can darn well bet it's going into the news section. And the choice on when, where and whether to run it will certainly be based on how the readership will react.

I know, we're better than waiters. Of course, nobody else realizes that, but that's okay, we remind ourselves.

 

So you'll stick to covering games and making the locals look good?

 

Boy oh boy, this is totally off-subject, but let me try. Last December I came upon a story that involved a pair of high school wrestlers involved in a hazing incident on school property in the wrestling room, etc. I called my editor that night and we talked about how we were going to handle the story. We agreed it was front-page story -- not on sports page -- but I was writing it. So I did. I contacted school officials and got the scoop -- the principal, the A.D., the wrestling coach, etc. I later found out there were criminal issues involved. I wrote that as well when the charges were filed. We wrote sidebars, etc. The news editor got on board and covered it when the kid had to go to court. I'd say 95 percent of the story was on the news front with a story here or there that slipped into sports. No commentary written in sports.

Did it impact my coverage of the team? A little. I still covered the team the remainder of the season. I talked to the kid in question and he didn't want to answer my questions. I later talked to him when he did well at the state tournament. We didn't sweep the story under the rug. It got some national feedback online. AND ... it was recently recognized for an award by the local press association, so I hear. The wrestling coach didn't talk to me for a few weeks, so I went around him and talked to assistants, wrestlers, etc.

I know this jumped off -subject, but just saying I was doing my journalistic duty.


The point I'm making here is the paper chose me to get the ball rolling because I had the tie-ins with the school and the athletic department. News jumped in when it got to the court prooceeding. But we leaned on each other to make it right.

 

This is the kind of crap that is killing newspapers and journalism.

This "give them what they want" attitude is going to be our downfall.

It's as though we're nutritionists who know what folks need to eat to be healthy and strong. But they don't want peas and broccoli. They want jellybeans and ice cream. Then, when they're fat and stupid, they'll wonder why no one did their job.

Almost all the idealism has drained from many newsrooms. We no longer do something because it's right. It's better to gauge reader reaction, first.

I remember the good old days when an ad manager would walk into the newsroom and the managing editor would grumble, "What the hell are you doing here." Nowadays, the managing editor is down in the ad department asking how a story might be tailored to fit a marketing niche.

Granted, things aren't usually life-and-death in sports. But if your goal is merely to whip the cream, you're no journalist. You're part of the problem.

 

Yep. I'm happy, the readers are happy, my paychecks still clear. I'm failing to see the problem. Heck, in the "coach abuses player" story, I'd still probably write it, but I wouldn't put it in the sports section.

If I were writing the story, I wouldn't have run the photo and I would have mentioned the fumble without mentioning the name of the player who fumbled. Work for everybody? Nope, but it's working fine for me.

You've got the cause and effect mixed up. The downfall already happened, maybe you didn't notice. And readers stopped taking us seriously long before any of us stopped taking ourselves so seriously.

 

The downfall began when journalism was sold out. When and if readers get tired of reading the boosterism of fan sites and the custom-tailored cream puff stories.

Chances are they will have nothing to turn to.

Mainly because the few people and companies that could have held the line are just emasculated hacks, more concerned in eking out a meager living than doing quality work.

It used to be a calling; not the same as a flipping burgers at a McDonald's

 

The problem is you have no journalistic integrity.

But if you're happy with being a positive shill for your community, so be it.

 

Sure I do. There's lots of lines I won't cross. But insisting on completely objective coverage of a high-school football game, when nobody is asking for completely objective coverage, is silly.


Forgive me for not hanging myself on a cross of a made-up morality that makes no difference in the world.

There used to be enough money flowing in to cover up for our overinflated sense of worth.

 

And when I have to give up my integrity or the pay level I have proven myself to be worth, I'll find another career.

 

I can see Rick's point in a way. When you're in a small town, sometimes you have to exercise more caution when writing a story or shooting a photo. Those sources are sometimes the only ones you have, unlike in a big city, where if somebody doesn't want to talk to you, someone else will. You have to balance whether or not the story is worth pissing off a source permanently.

But at the same time, you can't be a total shill. Because some day, there will be a very difficult story that will end up pissing off a lot of readers. And as the reporter, you're going to need the credibility to pull that story off, rather than just be dismissed as a lightweight. And the readers are going to be in for quite a shock when their world is turned upside down because of a story.

On the original topic, I once shot a photo of the local girls hoops team losing in the state playoffs. The photo ran on the front page of the paper. It was of one of the girls crying on the bench, while one of her teammates had her arm around her consoling her.

My editor liked the photo, and admitted, "We'll probably get some complaints about this." Yet, we never heard a word. A week later, I bumped into the mom of the crying kid. I expected to be ripped, but instead, she thanked me for showing her child and her longtime friend in a close moment.