Small Colorado daily draws flak for football photo

Of course a coach abusing players would go on the front page. But I would also bet that a sports writer familiar with the school/coach would do the writing.

I see it quite often actually, where a sports writers story goes on A1.

 

Three local high school gridders here were ejected after an on-field fight, which tripped state rules, canceling the season's last game. The local paper, bless 'em, named the players, drawing indignant letters from the players' moms, who wrote the paper should not have printed their names because it was humiliating. (And newsworthy.)

 

Rick, man, I love you. But you're so wrong, you can't even see right.

If a kid fumbles, and that's the story of the game, then that's what your write. And you get a quote from the coach saying that it wasn't the fault of the kid who fumbled that the team lost, that they lost as a team, that they blew their opportunities, etc.

Small town papers require you to have a deft touch. We all spin local and we all play up the positive. But that doesn't mean you give up the soul of what you do. Your job is to report what happened. You don't have to rub the kid's nose in his mistake. But you can't duck it, either. You can't not write what happened. That's the line.

 

I see Rick's point as well. I've written my share of controversial stuff (local college cheating scandal; not exactly positive gamers if the locals play bad), but you do have to handle things, especially involving preps, gingerly. I could certainly understand someone choosing not to run the fumble photo. It doesn't really serve anyone any good, especially at that level of competition.

 

Was that the only photo used from the game?

 

Of course, in Rick's example, making the local team look good often involves making the non-local team look like crap.

But that's OK, apparently. I mean, it's not like there's any venue where someone from out of your paper's circulation area can read your coverage, right?

 

First, I don't see why anything I said involves making the other team looks like crap. In fact, usually it's the opposite. Instead of writing that Home Team RB fumbled, you write that Road Team LB recovered a fumble.

Second, why should I care what random web hits think in relation to regular, local readers?

 

Because those kids are still real people? Or I guess not. I guess the only people who count are the ones who spend money on your paper.

People can recognize half-facts. I think you'll chase off more readers doing that than you will by being honest.

 

Yes. That's kind of the point of a business. To provide things for your customers.

That's a judgment we all (or our editors all) have to make. I've never gotten that impression from readers, but I could be wrong.

 

And people wonder why news siders refer to sports as "the toy department."

 

I haven't heard that lately. Maybe they all got laid off?

 

Horseshit.

If you want to "provide things for your customers" why not just write that the home team wins every game?

You're a journalist. You write what happened. You owe your reader your agency and discretion, but you don't just provide what they want. You tell the truth.