APSE winner: Haven't I read this before?

[Hack]

Look up the nexis version of the P-P story and compare it to the Post's. It is essentially 90 percent the same. It's just offensive, really, that the judges would whiff so badly.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Maybe you'll do better than first runner-up next year, Hack

 

[Hack]

Maybe you'll read all the entries before you vote next year, dooley.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Whenever I advance past the agate desk, I'll worry about getting a vote.

 

[EE94]

Waylon:

Shouldn't consistency be important when a major organization is giving out awards, especially in such a subjective field? I think each year's judges should educate themselves on what type of stories have won in previous years, absolutely. Helps establish a precedent, instead of just having things dictated each year by whoever happens to show up to judge that particular time.

This type of thing lends ammo to those who scoff at the importance and diligence of the APSE awards and their judges.

But what does the Twin Cities market care if a Reardon story was already done in Palm Beach, Fla.?

As Hack said, that has nothing to do with the APSEs. Every newspaper can do a Reardon story if they so choose. Doesn't mean the same organization should reward the same exact subject matter in consecutive years.

But the Holocaust documentary du jour always wins at the Oscars

 

[FreddiePatek]

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate:

What makes everyone here think the same eight judges (4 prelim, 4 final) read the same story in 2006 and 2007? Are we really expecting the judges to bone up on every winner before judging the next year?

Just askin'

 

[thereligiouswrong]

Awards.

Never submit.

Never congratulate.

I'm a ****.

 

[Hack]

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate:

What makes everyone here think the same eight judges (4 prelim, 4 final) read the same story in 2006 and 2007? Are we really expecting the judges to bone up on every winner before judging the next year?

Just askin'

Irrelevant. This is an update story that quotes another publication for key facts. Fine for the readers of St. Paul. Not as APSE winner.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Look up the nexis version of the P-P story and compare it to the Post's. It is essentially 90 percent the same. It's just offensive, really, that the judges would whiff so badly.

Dude, do you know how many stories they read each year? And who's to say the same judges read the same categories two years in a row.

You really expect them to know who won last year for what story? Jesus, dude, get a grip.

Maybe you can do a Scott Spezio story next year and clean up.

 

[Jones]

Sorry Bob, I'm going to agree with Hack here. The judges should at least know the topics of winning stories from the past three or four years. That would take about ten minutes to review -- we're not talking about cramming their memory banks or expecting them to read twenty extra stories (although I think if I were a judge, I would do that, just to see where the winning bar is usually set).

To me, this is like giving the Academy Award for Best Picture to "The Ship That Hit the Iceberg" the year after "Titanic." I wouldn't expect that to happen at the Oscars -- it shouldn't happen here.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Maybe, but because one writer wrote a really good story this year on the same subject fr a different paper, should that disqualify them from winning because someone won last year?

I haven't read the stories, I don't know if they're good or not.

Just sayin'. If I was a judge, I wouldn't penalize someone for something another person did. Now, if they wrote the exact same story, that would be poor. But how would you know unless you wentback and rad all of the winners from the year before. And really, who has time for all of that?

I don't, but then I would never want to judge APSE and deal with all of that.

 

[WaylonJennings]

OK, wait, hang on.

I must have read too quickly.

A Reardon story actually WON the category two years in a row? Same category? Didn't just place - but won?

 

[Jones]

That's how I'm understanding this -- each won the same award (Features) in the same circulation category. That's how I read the first post, at least.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate:

What makes everyone here think the same eight judges (4 prelim, 4 final) read the same story in 2006 and 2007? Are we really expecting the judges to bone up on every winner before judging the next year?

Just askin'

I sort of agree with you. As an individual judge, it is a hard standard to live up to. Expecting to make a connection like that.

Besides, Frias' piece grabbed much of its meat from the RealSports story from three years ago.

Did someone say that quotes from the PBP were in the SPPP story? If I had seen THAT as a judge, that would have raised a huge red flag, but otherwise.... I don't think I could say I would have caught it with 100 percent confidence.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate:

What makes everyone here think the same eight judges (4 prelim, 4 final) read the same story in 2006 and 2007? Are we really expecting the judges to bone up on every winner before judging the next year?

Just askin'

I sort of agree with you. As an individual judge, it is a hard standard to live up to. Expecting to make a connection like that.

Besides, Frias' piece grabbed much of its meat from the RealSports story from three years ago.

Did someone say that quotes from the PBP were in the SPPP story? If I had seen THAT as a judge, that would have raised a huge red flag, but otherwise.... I don't think I could say I would have caught it with 100 percent confidence.

You wouldn't catch it, though, because he probably blacked out references to all newspaper names.

 

[shotglass]

Sorry Bob, I'm going to agree with Hack here. The judges should at least know the topics of winning stories from the past three or four years. That would take about ten minutes to review -- we're not talking about cramming their memory banks or expecting them to read twenty extra stories (although I think if I were a judge, I would do that, just to see where the winning bar is usually set).

To me, this is like giving the Academy Award for Best Picture to "The Ship That Hit the Iceberg" the year after "Titanic." I wouldn't expect that to happen at the Oscars -- it shouldn't happen here.

Jonesy, if you believe they do that much homework, I think that's your big mistake.

The only thing I get out of this is that the contestants believe the judges are somehow more worthy of judging a good story or a good section than any one of us. They're just newspaper employees, too.

 

[Joe Williams]

They're just newspaper employees, too.

Today maybe, but we can never be sure about tomorrow anymore.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

One story wins the top prize each year on each category/circulation, which means there are what, five-six winners each year in features?

Five gain honorable mention in most categories. Four others, give or take, place.

It's not too much to ask judges to review the previous year's winning stories, especially since APSE tries so hard to get them online, and accessible, to everyone. Those who judge in a certain category should take a look at previous year's top stories as part of due diligence. If the judging and the contests are to be taken that seriously by entrants and papers who get journalists on their radar thanks to awards, the judges should take them seriously as well.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people entering a room and bringing their own personal views and biases into it. And considering how many factors go into APSE judging - who shows up can be based on that year's location, for instance - it behooves them to at least try to be consistent.

The same subject should not win the same category in consecutive years unless the second story is an update of significant proportions.