Dog bites man.

[wickedwritah]

Of course it's not news.

Do you really think sports sections should only print news?

It's entertaining.

What's the problem?

I'm not entertained by it.

What did this foof expect? To be cheered as if he were W in the days following 9/11?

The "foof" probably did what his editor told him to do.

Yeah, BillyT, in retrospect, the words were harsh. The guy probably did exactly what his editor told him to do. He didn't deserve my personal crack.

But if this is the best Marty Biron and the gang at the Globe can come up with -- another example of provincialism emanating from the capital of paranoia and provincialism -- then there even are more problems on Morrissey than anyone thought previously.

 

[playthrough]

Look, when it comes to the first, second, third day immediately after a championship, it doesn't take a Mensa to sell newspapers and keep the love flowing. You can play it completely straight and make a small fortune off single-copy sales, the commemorative t-shirt with the front page of the paper silkscreened on, the coffee mugs, the book with the paper's coverage from the entire season, etc. The Boston papers probably did shoot their wad in 2004 with the curse-breaking title, so on the surface I'm OK with looking for new angles. But going somewhere else to rub another city's nose in it? That's being a jackass. I don't care if it's the Boston-NY thing.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Considering that an innocent citizen got shot stone dead by police at a Red Sox victory celebration, I can think of a few newsworthy stories on the celebrations here. News side of the Globe has been running extremely stupid stories on page one all during the Series. Like the day before game one, we Bostonians were told the amazing news that World Series tickets are expensive, hard to get, and usually wind up going to wealthy and influential people. Stop the bleep presses! Get the Pulitzer Committee out of bed!
There are a lot of talented people at the Globe. Top management would not appear to be among them. So the quarterly reports of the Times Corporation tell me.

 

[spnited]

Wicked, civic pride is the backbone of the whole story.
Boston got over on NY.
We're gonna send a reporter to rub it in and see how NY responds.

Most of NY responded with a huge yawn

 

[silentbob]

Spnited, I would wonder how you would know most of NY yawned, but that would be counterproductive to the conversation.

Frank, a 1,000 folks don't seem like much. But it kinda is. That's not the number of web hits. That's the number of people who went thru the trouble of emailing the story to someone else. I would bet that's a pretty significant number for a web story. Come to think of it, I've never emailed a story to anyone in my life.

I never said this was the greatest story ever written. Nor the best idea. ... My point is simply that what we consider good stories and what the public considers good stories are often times very, very different things. And sometimes we let down our readers because we feel we couldn't possibly sink to such levels of reporting. To put it another way, we've become journalism snobs.

Go back and read these posts. We've thrown out terms like "news hook" and pointed out the root of "newspaper" and talked about "integrity" and "ethics" and "real journalism." And it all sounds real good. But those terms don't apply to every story, every situation. They certainly didn't in this case.

 

[spnited]

I'm pretty sure, bob, if you checked FOX's World Series ratings in NY, you'd find most of New York yawned.
Despite what some idiot editor in Boston thinks, there are thousands of people walking the streets of NYC every day with Red Sox caps, shirts, etc. on and nobody pays attention to them.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

there are thousands of people walking the streets of NYC every day with Red Sox caps, shirts, etc. on

Among them, Rudy Giuliani.

 

[awriter]

I have many goals as a journalist, but one has never been work at a newspaper that is considered "popular." That word never even enters the equation. This isn't high school. Words like "ethical", "integrity" and "creative" do enter the equation.

Sure, a newspaper could write only stories that everyone would like, rehashing the same old crap other papers have succeeded with in the past. It would make our jobs easier and we might make more money. But if you wanted an easy job that makes money, you are in the wrong business.

I've always thought it was our job to inform AND entertain. And believe me, both can be done at the same time. What this story does is entertain. But does anyone learn anything? Yankees fans hate the Sox. HOLY ****! Instead of this stupid ruse, how about finding a Red Sox fan that lives in New York and how he celebrated? Or finding out what the scene was like in New York sports bars? I know these aren't groundbreaking, but at least they take a little more thought and work than just wearing a Sox hat.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with sending the reporter to New York, but the execution kinda sucked. He really could have had fun with this. You have the Red Sox celebrating another championship and the Yankees falling apart, but there was no humor in that story. Also, am I the only one bothered by the idea of a reporter wearing team garb and doing it while on the clock?

 

[wickedwritah]

Also, am I the only one bothered by the idea of a reporter wearing team garb and doing it while on the clock?

Well, considering that the reporter is paid by the same entity that owns 17 percent of the Red Sox, you shouldn't be shocked.

 

[captzulu]

I have many goals as a journalist, but one has never been work at a newspaper that is considered "popular." That word never even enters the equation. This isn't high school. Words like "ethical", "integrity" and "creative" do enter the equation.

But if your newspaper isn't "popular", who's reading your work? If people generally don't read your paper because they think the product as a whole is dull, then your great hard-hitting enterprise story is completely wasted. Besides, journalism is supposed to serve the community -- not the journalists' own egos -- so why is it wrong to put out a product that appeals to readers' tastes? It's not a popularity contest, but journalists should also get off their high horse and see that producing a few fluff stories that readers enjoy every now and then isn't selling out your journalistic integrity, but rather furthering the mission of serving your readers.

Also, your point that newspapers should be entertaining AND informative is valid, and yes, there are times when you can do both in one story. But not every single story in the paper has to be both (look at it from the other side: how many city hall stories are both informative AND entertaining?). What is important is that the paper as a whole accomplishes both goals, which means having a good mix of stories that are both, and stories that are one or the other.

Let's put aside the quality of this particular story for a moment and just talk about the basic principle of it. A fluff piece that gets people to read and helps make people think that the paper is worth reading would help bring in resources journalists need to do other, hard-hitting pieces or to just cover stuff like city hall, which aren't the most appealing things to read but still need to be covered. Besides, consider this: Like it or not, part of the resources that pay for great investigative work come from subscriptions by people who just want the paper for the Sunday inserts. But would you argue that the newspaper would be better off without that revenue since those people don't read the paper for the stories that they "should" read or stories that are up to our personal level of journalistic integrity? And what do you think about a news reporter who laments that the sports section is more popular with readers than the much more important and hard-hitting news section? Hell, you can make the argument that much of the sports section is pure entertainment and not really any news of substance when compared to stories on Iraq. But the point is: Readers care about it. If putting some purely entertaining stories in the paper can help corral more readers and more resources, I don't see any problem with it.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I have many goals as a journalist, but one has never been work at a newspaper that is considered "popular." That word never even enters the equation. This isn't high school. Words like "ethical", "integrity" and "creative" do enter the equation.

But if your newspaper isn't "popular", who's reading your work? If people generally don't read your paper because they think the product as a whole is dull, then your great hard-hitting enterprise story is completely wasted. Besides, journalism is supposed to serve the community -- not the journalists' own egos -- so why is it wrong to put out a product that appeals to readers' tastes? It's not a popularity contest, but journalists should also get off their high horse and see that producing a few fluff stories that readers enjoy every now and then isn't selling out your journalistic integrity, but rather furthering the mission of serving your readers.

Also, your point that newspapers should be entertaining AND informative is valid, and yes, there are times when you can do both in one story. But not every single story in the paper has to be both (look at it from the other side: how many city hall stories are both informative AND entertaining?). What is important is that the paper as a whole accomplishes both goals, which means having a good mix of stories that are both, and stories that are one or the other.

Let's put aside the quality of this particular story for a moment and just talk about the basic principle of it. A fluff piece that gets people to read and helps make people think that the paper is worth reading would help bring in resources journalists need to do other, hard-hitting pieces or to just cover stuff like city hall, which aren't the most appealing things to read but still need to be covered. Besides, consider this: Like it or not, part of the resources that pay for great investigative work come from subscriptions by people who just want the paper for the Sunday inserts. But would you argue that the newspaper would be better off without that revenue since those people don't read the paper for the stories that they "should" read or stories that are up to our personal level of journalistic integrity? And what do you think about a news reporter who laments that the sports section is more popular with readers than the much more important and hard-hitting news section? Hell, you can make the argument that much of the sports section is pure entertainment and not really any news of substance when compared to stories on Iraq. But the point is: Readers care about it. If putting some purely entertaining stories in the paper can help corral more readers and more resources, I don't see any problem with it.

We already run the comics, advice columns, all kinds of fun ****, and always have.

That doesn't mean we can't, in our professional opinion, decide a story has no value whatsoever, as news or as entertainment. We've seen it before. And we don't have to read past the headline to have the gist of it. Lest you think I'm an old fart, I'll give you some pandering right here. I'll appeal to SportsJournalists.com's younger readers by quoting Kurt ... ahhh ... Cobain, yes, that's it, Cobain, that flannel-wearing dead fella. "I wish I was like you, easily amused."

 

[TyWebb]

I have many goals as a journalist, but one has never been work at a newspaper that is considered "popular." That word never even enters the equation. This isn't high school. Words like "ethical", "integrity" and "creative" do enter the equation.

But if your newspaper isn't "popular", who's reading your work? If people generally don't read your paper because they think the product as a whole is dull, then your great hard-hitting enterprise story is completely wasted. Besides, journalism is supposed to serve the community -- not the journalists' own egos -- so why is it wrong to put out a product that appeals to readers' tastes? It's not a popularity contest, but journalists should also get off their high horse and see that producing a few fluff stories that readers enjoy every now and then isn't selling out your journalistic integrity, but rather furthering the mission of serving your readers.

Also, your point that newspapers should be entertaining AND informative is valid, and yes, there are times when you can do both in one story. But not every single story in the paper has to be both (look at it from the other side: how many city hall stories are both informative AND entertaining?). What is important is that the paper as a whole accomplishes both goals, which means having a good mix of stories that are both, and stories that are one or the other.

Let's put aside the quality of this particular story for a moment and just talk about the basic principle of it. A fluff piece that gets people to read and helps make people think that the paper is worth reading would help bring in resources journalists need to do other, hard-hitting pieces or to just cover stuff like city hall, which aren't the most appealing things to read but still need to be covered. Besides, consider this: Like it or not, part of the resources that pay for great investigative work come from subscriptions by people who just want the paper for the Sunday inserts. But would you argue that the newspaper would be better off without that revenue since those people don't read the paper for the stories that they "should" read or stories that are up to our personal level of journalistic integrity? And what do you think about a news reporter who laments that the sports section is more popular with readers than the much more important and hard-hitting news section? Hell, you can make the argument that much of the sports section is pure entertainment and not really any news of substance when compared to stories on Iraq. But the point is: Readers care about it. If putting some purely entertaining stories in the paper can help corral more readers and more resources, I don't see any problem with it.

Your point is well taken, and I agree that fluff pieces are part of the status quo. But this piece, I feel, is worse than fluff. But that really is beside the point.

As far a paper's responsibility to serve the community, I agree. But I don't think the paper serves anything or anyone by pandering to stunts like this. The papers that I enjoy most, and I've found those that still read them enjoy, are those that raise the level of discussion, not lower itself to what people will find "cool" or "popular". This may be me on the journalists' high-horse, but I'm really not trying to sound elitist here. I'm just saying what I think.

I don't think we, as journalists, need to settle for stupid stories like this to get people to read our paper. I think we should step our game up, to take an athlete's cliche, and be more creative and work harder to put out stuff that no one has seen or read before. That way, people will want to read our papers/web sites and we will have added to the public discourse.

I work at a paper in Georgia and I guarantee you we could almost double our rack sales if we wrote primarily about why UGA rules and why Georgia Tech sucks. And at some level, that is what the piece in question did with the Red Sox and Yankees. Instead, we try to go beyond the surface, talk to players no one knows about, investigate trends, do stuff that hasn't been done. If I can make someone say "Wow, I did not know that" once every week or so, then I am doing my job well. Do you think anybody that read this piece said, "Wow, I didn't know Yankees fans hate the Red Sox."

 

[buckweaver]

I work at a paper in Georgia and I guarantee you we could almost double our rack sales if we wrote primarily about why UGA rules and why Georgia Tech sucks.

Wait ... there's a paper in Georgia that doesn't do that? Not any that I ever read.

 

[TyWebb]

I work at a paper in Georgia and I guarantee you we could almost double our rack sales if we wrote primarily about why UGA rules and why Georgia Tech sucks.

Wait ... there's a paper in Georgia that doesn't do that? Not any that I ever read.

Well WE are better. We save that stuff for our BLOGS!

 

[BillyT]

Bravo to Ty.

Someone finally offered some alternatives.

Pilot, no one claims the story is a scientific survey on how everyone in NY felt.

Judging by everyone's responses, I'm guessing a lot of you weren't thrilled with T.J. Simers making fun of the Nebraska folk. Same premise.

By the way, here are the latest results on The Globe's most-emailed story of the day. I agree that for the most part the masses are asses -- but judging by this, I'd say the story was a success. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. It's almost double.

956 Sneers, loathing greet a Boston fan in NYC
548 Flying high again
494 The Rolling Rally
424 Reason to celebrate
363 Photoshopping the Red Sox
296 Red Sox World Series celebration
262 Jordan's knows cost of victory full well
211 A triumphant return
189 Bistro ending its soulful reign

That tells you, in part, that the story got very good play on the website and the newspaper.

How would those numbers relate to play in the paper?

I don't think it got especially pushed on the web site.

For what it's worth, there were two stories on the left-hand side of the front, about 15-18 picas wide -- the parade story on top and the "sneers and loathing" under it. The two-deck 24 head was right at the fold (visible above it).

 

[playthrough]

If it runs on the front page of the paper, more eyeballs see it and, consequently, more might run to the site to send it to someone who doesn't get the paper. And if it's on the front page of the print edition it's almost certainly as prominent on the web.