Is a correction needed?

[DemoChristian]

That's a Straw Man, Ace.
I agreed with you on the stringer. If it happened that way -- the stringer ignored a paper's policy -- then it's a problem.
Is your argument that we should just transcribe what the community thinks we should?

 

[Ace]

That's a Straw Man, Ace.
I agreed with you on the stringer. If it happened that way -- the stringer ignored a paper's policy -- then it's a problem.
Is your argument that we should just transcribe what the community thinks we should?

No. I think we should be consistent. I would not want to run the names of all the players on a softball team in a preview, but if our paper did it for three other teams and not the fourth, that's wrong.

I would absolutely consider correcting it (maybe in the form of running a full roster or something), especially if the coach gave all the names to the stringer and he didn't use them all.

Just because parents are mad doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

[zebracoy]

Maybe it does sound arrogant, but it is our job to decide what goes in the paper. That is what we are trained for.
Readers can suggest things. I'm not saying I won't do something just because it wasn't my idea, but I don't go into the doctor's office and tell them they MUST prescribe this medication, do I?

Agreed. There's a reason for the term "gatekeeper." Hell, I pick and choose which of the "Notable:" stats go at the end of the box score every night. Not good enough? Select all, Delete.

 

[DemoChristian]

That's a Straw Man, Ace.
I agreed with you on the stringer. If it happened that way -- the stringer ignored a paper's policy -- then it's a problem.
Is your argument that we should just transcribe what the community thinks we should?

No. I think we should be consistent. I would not want to run the names of all the players on a softball team in a preview, but if our paper did it for three other teams and not the fourth, that's wrong.

I would absolutely consider correcting it (maybe in the form of running a full roster or something), especially if the coach gave all the names to the stringer and he didn't use them all.

Just because parents are mad doesn't mean they are wrong.

Then we are in agreement. However, I try to do what's right, not what will make some irate parent happy.
Just because they are mad doesn't mean they are right either.

 

[fishwrapper]

Maybe they died and the stringer was on top of things? [/oldthread]

 

[Ace]

We seem to take this "screw those crazy parents" attitude.

They aren't always wrong. Sometimes we are. Gatekeepers or not.

 

[DemoChristian]

We seem to take this "screw those crazy parents" attitude.

They aren't always wrong. Sometimes we are. Gatekeepers or not.

True.

 

[deskslave]

If the policy is to run all the names, then you need a clarification (not a correction) to include the missing names.

At the end of the school year, you go back and take a hard look at that policy. You can't just change it in the middle of the year, though, unfortunately.

 

[DemoChristian]

I think most of us would agree that's a silly policy.

 

[zebracoy]

I think most of us would agree that's a silly policy.

And one that, as I have seen in the past two years, could be changed mid-season.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

If the policy is to run all the names, then you need a clarification (not a correction) to include the missing names.

At the end of the school year, you go back and take a hard look at that policy. You can't just change it in the middle of the year, though, unfortunately.

It's not a policy to list every player. It's more "We'll use whatever the coach gives us."
And given a choice, I'm not very big on preview stories.