The Homer Article

I think everyone here is working too hard. If I cover team A, and team A loses, the story is team a losing.

For regular high school games, which i don't go to much anymore I will admit, my story is always focused with coach quote, and if applicable player quote from the team I cover. Other team, out of area, forget about it.

I was told early on don't even bother with a coach out of our coverage area unless there was something that was pressing. And I agree with that approach. Who gives a rats ass about triangulation on a 12 inch high school gamer? No one wants to know the out of area coaches thoughts.

I have found that the more I go up the sports food chain, it is even more pronounced. I see gamers all the time in college and pros sports that don't have the opposing side quoted. The writers can't even make it to both locker rooms. I'll try hard to fit in an opposing coach for balance. But for a prep gamer, write for the town you are covering.

And I agree with the out of area fuck them thoughts. I think sometimes prep writers work way too hard. 3 people quoted on a high school story during the regular season? Unless it is football, or a huge hoops game with major implications, that's just a little too much. 12 inches, 2 quotes and fly.

edit: Got lazy and used right for write. LOL. 3am here and cant sleep Edited to fix.

 

To me, that echoes more laziness than knowing your market. I think if you don't offer both sides of the story, you're not doing the job to the best of your ability. Not every story I write has five sources; three is my minimum target, depending on time and space and what happens during the game.

But no matter what I've written -- NFL, MLB, college, preps and little league -- I offer both sides because, not only does it give a more well-rounded piece, it'll give you a chance to catch more angles to the story. It only takes another 10-15 minutes of my time, but it's worth it every time I file a story.

 

I see a lot of beat stories that I'd consider good, objective journalism that still focus more on the home team — and I really don't see a problem with that if you're following that team all year, and you strive to tell the story objectively and don't sympathize with either side.

A lot of it depends on deadline pressures and what you can do. If I have a bit of time to write, I might chase the visitors first, knowing I can get back to the home team by phone or whatever the next day. If I'm tight for time, unless I know the out-of-area team did something profound or has a coach or player I really want to talk to, I'm spending more of my time hammering out the local team angle.

I'd also think in the case of a weekly, where you're pulling together something that's more focused on a trend or not next day, chasing two teams becomes less relevant than going even more in depth with the one side.

Certainly, however, when you have a chance to talk to both sides - even if you don't use the quotes, they can give you more perspective to shape a story.

 

Are we talking strictly about gamers, here?

I mean, I would think based on these posts so far that articles like Simmons on ESPN.com's constant Celtics worship is something different, but I just want to be clear.

In terms of just gamers, the answer is not usually but I think there can be exceptions.

For instance, if you are working at a small paper in a small town that is heavily focused on high school sports -- and the local high school wins or loses a state title against a team that is not in your coverage area, you should clearly write the story from the local team's perspective.

 

so mike, you're saying that reporters who obviously know their audience better than you do – and by and large, the local readers don't give a shit about what the out-of-area coach/players say – are just being lazy? why don't you come down off your utopian high horse and join the real world.

there are too many people in this business trying to tell the readers what they should want in their coverage while turning a deaf ear to what the reader is actually telling them they want. that's like you telling me i have to eat spinach when i don't like spinach because you think it's good for me.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the logic that "nobody cares what the other coach has to say." I've found that, if they are talking about "your" team, everybody in town cares what they have to say.

If "your" team's running back goes for 200 yards, and the opposing coach calls him a "beast" or a "manchild" or "the toughest sonufabitch we've ever seen" -- all that makes for good copy. But you'll never know unless you ask Mr. out-of-area coach what he thinks.

Again, I'm not saying it's a must to talk to both sides, if space and deadlines and logistics don't make it feasible. But it never hurts to get different perspectives. Not necessarily for balance, but just to give your copy a better chance to be the best it can be.

Also, just because you talk to the "other" side doesn't mean you have to use the quotes. I'm all for using the best stuff, regardless of who said it.

 

That is a great, great point -- most of the WORST stories I've ever read have far too many quotes in them. I think quotes almost always do more to hurt the flow of a story than to help them because so many people subscribe to this notion that we have to quote everyone and anyone just to give our story more credibility.

I always go by the rule -- don't quote someone if they don't have anything compelling to say or if their quote doesn't do anything to help your story or add to what has already been written.

 

Exactly. The focus is still on the team in the circ area, but not to the point that completely ignore the other team. Just that one good quote from the other side can add some more perspective.

Also, I've found that by treating opposing coaches/players like people and not invaders, they don't think of us as a bunch of shilling homers. It works out on both ends.

 

If a guy on my team has a huge dominating game, then I got to the opposing coach and ask him about the guy that I am covering.

Early in my career when I covered preps exclusively, I would get two coaches quotes and the star player. You know, going back and reading my stories, they were garbage. Good prose choked by quotes. I felt obligated to put in these quotes.

Now, I get only what I need. Sometimes I talk to the kids and if I don't like what they said, or it didn't add anything, I don't put it in.

I have a problem with prep writers who go overboard as mike does (no offense, I like your passion). It would appear to me that a lot of prep writers that I come across sometimes overdo their stories by adding player quotes everywhere. I have talked about this with them and I get "These kids will get a kick out of it and when will they ever get interviewed again?"

Maybe I am jaded, but when did this have any influence on the coverage? I am not at a metro either, but we don't have to kiss these kids asses either. Do a professional job and if it is worth making a big deal out of it, do so. If not, don't try and make it bigger than it is.

Mike, are you a stringer? This may account for why many of us have different views. If you ever sat on a high school desk for a year, you would go nuts reading life or death game stories every day. You got to ask yourself, was the game as important as I am writing it?

 

Sometimes it just isn't possible to get quotes from both teams. Ideally, I'd like to have at least both coaches and both star players, but sometimes you have to make a decision which locker room you're going to be in and/or which coach you can get. And you CAN'T get both because of scheduling.

That's one reason that of the sports I've covered so far, I enjoyed covering women's basketball the most. You usually get both coaches and players from both teams in the media room and you can get both sides. And, I didn't have to go into the locker room and feel like I was invading an inner sanctum.

 

Is this on a prep beat?

 

No, women's college basketball.