Special note from The Advocate

Jesus... I think you need to take Journalism 101 again... This is unethical, as well as a bit cowardly and juvenile...

 

The note was a little strange and unnecessary but that's on the Advocate and maybe they were just trying to make a point.

And BG I used to think that way but then I got older and things like wifi in the press box, and before that, the friendly coach who'd let you file from his office started to matter.

Then I got grumpy and tired of coach based dumbness like the guys who won't send you a roster because of "privacy concerns" or the ones who won't call you back when you're trying to bang out an advance.

I mean if dumbo coach is playing for a title then the game gets what it deserves but if the games are all of relatively equal news value, then the friendly coach gets the nod.

Life's too short to put up with that shit. I fully acknowledge that this approach may not be the correct one though.

 

That might break a tie, so to speak, but no way I ever cover a game that's inferior to another game simply because the inferior game has more media friendly coaches/administrators.

One practical thing I'd consider is the media-friendly coach is more likely to offer better information for a game you did not cover than the media-unfriendly coach. So if "WannaSaban" is coaching in the better game, there's no way I DON'T cover it for that reason.

Remember, you are serving your readers first.

 

I think Shotty had the best line about this all: It's not about you.

If Southern is the No. 12 priority for your product (based on reader interest), then treat it like it's No. 12. No matter how much you want to send a message, it shouldn't rise or fall on your list of priorities because of some pissing match that your readers don't care about.

And at the very least, you don't advertise that you're dropping it down on that list and give your readers another reason to paint you as the bad guy, out to get the last word because you don't get what you want. That note read like an 8-year-old holding his breath and stomping his feet because mean old mommy wouldn't let him eat cake for dinner.

 

They've updated the note with some comments from the AD.

I don't know if how the Advocate handled it was the right way but when you've been giving your readers seven or eight stories a week and you suddenly drop down to one or two then maybe an explainer is in order.

 

The follow-up note explains it a lot better than the original one did:

The Advocate traditionally has player feature stories that run in the print edition on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and has an opponent feature story that runs on Fridays. In addition, there are “sidebars” to the main game story which run on Sundays. Those stories rely on player interviews.

It's a good idea to explain it ahead of time in case anyone wonders why those stories have disappeared.

 

The point that may be getting overlooked here is the assumption that Southern is way down the list of priorities for the Advocate, and I'm not sure that's the case.

Sure, it's not going to get coverage like LSU is going to get. But Baton Rouge and South Louisiana have a large black population for whom Southern still matters, and moving into more New Orleans coverage shouldn't impact that all that much.

So you risk alienating a significant portion of your readership, and open yourself up to accusations of a racist mentality when you go public with something like this, and for no good reason other than you're pissed off at the AD.

 

So after reading that, this seems like at least partially a logistical concern in addition to flexing the paper's muscles. Six stories a week with quotes from only three players is more than possible though not easy. The stories might end up shorter, you might end up talking to each kid for far longer and you will likely end up dealing with a lot more sources from the players' real lives (not a bad thing in some cases, but certainly an extra hassle). Also probably requires meticulous planning since you have no extra interviews to fall back on. Again, not a bad thing, but it's a hurdle.

I'm also not clear if by three players available, it means three individuals, or three a week or what. If it's the first case, and we're talking the other three captains being the only guys available week after week, six stories a week might be a stretch.

A few people said this is just a case where a young hungry reporter needs to dig, dig, dig, and I'm wondering if said individuals would say how they'd attack it. Obviously the Advocate isn't taking that stance, I assume most of the kids would get in trouble if their byline makes it to print and I think it could be educational to see how others would get after it. Furthermore, are you using that hunger and digging to get more breaking stories, or to maintain the sort of rigorous coverages that had been there before?

Lastly, that coach can politely get fucked. You got housed by 41. This means your team is not near as talented or is simply playing like crap. Bulletin board material does not swing 42 points (imagine the gambling implications if it did). Maybe it accounts for some running it up late, but if you're frustrated "that the comment may have affected how the team played," you are not doing your fucking job. As a coach you can certainly take your ball and go home, but that's what it is.

 

If the paper is reasonably certain that it will win this standoff, isn't it better serving its readers this way? Full access likely means better coverage.

 

Southern's SID, if there currently is one, needs to do his or her job and get this resolved. I despise when schools that are lucky to have one reporter covering their beat, in this day and age, try to dictate how much access someone can have.

Having covered the SWAC in a past life ... I applaud The Advocate for its stance.