The Homer Article

[mike311gd]

When is a homer article become acceptable?

I've spoken to many people in and out of the business, current and former editors about this, and no matter what they say, I give the same response: Never.

I believe in fair, objective reporting, and that means -- to me -- multiple sources from multiple sides (three from winning team, two from losing ... whatever it takes). This hasn't went over well in every office I've worked, but it works for me.

I even find myself reading other paper's articles from time to time and scanning for differing sources. And when I don't find them, I stop reading. I just find the one-, two-source (one team, of course) to come off as pure laziness. Not to mention, it doesn't give you both sides to the story. ...

Anyone else?

 

[Eagleboy]

I agree that both sides of a story should always be covered in a game. To me, it's kind of a head-scratcher when I string for other papers that only want their local team's coach/players to be quoted in the story, even when the team loses 12-0 or 94-59 or something like that. Sometimes, I understand - quoting the opposing coach in a 10-inch story can be just a crunch of space. But as a reader, I'm interested in what the other side has to say about a key play as well.

 

[chazp]

I agree that both sides of a story should always be covered in a game. To me, it's kind of a head-scratcher when I string for other papers that only want their local team's coach/players to be quoted in the story, even when the team loses 12-0 or 94-59 or something like that. Sometimes, I understand - quoting the opposing coach in a 10-inch story can be just a crunch of space. But as a reader, I'm interested in what the other side has to say about a key play as well.

It has to do with space and readers. A 10-inch gamer doesn't allow for a lot of quotes, let alone from both sides. Also, if one school is out of the paper's coverage area, most readers don't care what the other coach said. When two teams from the coverage area play one another, then you'll oftentimes see quotes from both coaches, but again space can be a factor. A 12 or 15-inch gamer allows more room for quotes from both sides, while if you're limited to 10 inches, there really isn't enough room for both coaches to speak.

 

[ADifferentOkie]

To me, there is a difference between a "homer article" and an article that focuses solely on one team.
I try to give our readers what I think they care about most of the time. That tends to be more about the local team than the opposition.
That doesn't mean I am a homer. In fact, most people in this area would tell you I'm too hard on their teams, but I usually tell most of the story about the locals.

 

[FishHack76]

Personally, I'll get a quote from both coaches if they're both from the area - obviously. I will get one from both if the local team gets blown out. I think that would definitely be a head scratcher not to. Otherwise, you're going to have one good quote. "We tried hard, but the kids just came up short today," said Brock Landers, whose team drops to 0-35.
If it's the local team with a big win, I'd just get the local team. What is the out-of-area coach going to say? What is any coach going to say after a bad loss? The problem with sports quotes many times is they can all sound the same.
Hell, I feel I can write better than most coaches can speak. My point is that if you're heavy on the quotes, you're not leaving much room for anything else - color, analysis, the why and the how, etc - the stuff that makes a game story good and/or great.
There's nothing worse than what I call a fire escape story. After the lede and the who, what, where and when .. it's deck, quote, deck, quote, deck, quote, deck, quote, deck, quote until the writer gets out of the story as if it were a burning building. I usually can't read those kinds of stories even if they have quotes from both coaches.
I think this is like any set of rules. Sometimes you can bend them and sometimes you can break them. It depends on the situation.
I think a lot of it definitely depends on the room, and, with thinner web widths and shrinking space, it's more precious. So why waste it on Coach Joe Blow from Bumble**** High when you work for the ****own Gazette.
In certain areas of this great country - especially smaller towns and sometimes big suburban areas, ****own readers want to know about ****own, not Bumble****. They don't live in Bumble****. I've had readers tell me that. Like it or not, that's the readership in some places, and with people going elsewhere, there's obviously pressure to please that or hell, any segment of the waning readership.
I think whether you go for the out-of-town coach depends on deadline too. If you have 15 minutes to file a football gamer, and it's a 42-0 blowout and the Bumble**** coach has his players holed up in the locker room for an hour due to a screaming fit, you're obviously going to blow deadline.
Also, another big problem is coaches and players tend to run off (I've found out this spring that soccer teams are really, really, really bad about that.) so you have to get your people first before they hit the road or you're left with nothing. Sometimes by the time you get the local coach and sprint to the team bus - where the girl who scored the game-winning goal has to crawl all the way out from the back seat, the other team is long gone.
Not to threadjack, but I once interviewed at a place where they didn't quote the high school athletes - only the coaches.
To me, not getting an athlete quote in the paper is worse most of the time than not getting both coaches. They actually played in the game. Also, the coach isn't going to look back in a 20-year career and remember some interview after a random game. The kid who had the game-winning hit will remember and will save the story.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Write for your audience.

It's something I'm struggling to adapt to now... the last paper I worked for had roughly 40 schools in the coverage area, so almost every game involved two "local" teams, so I'd try to grab quotes from as many sources on both sides as possible. (although I'll echo the frustration of teams running to the bus and disappearing after the game.)

Now, I'm at a paper with only a handful of high schools in the area - more often than not, my gamers involve a local team playing a team well outside our small coverage area... Usually I'll grab both coaches and a couple players from the local team. If Joe Blow from the non-local team happens to hit three grand slams in one game or score 86 points, I'll grab a quote from him as well. But generally, the people who read the paper care about what the people from the local school have to say - so I'll focus on that.

 

[Angola!]

When is a homer article become acceptable?

I've spoken to many people in and out of the business, current and former editors about this, and no matter what they say, I give the same response: Never.

I believe in fair, objective reporting, and that means -- to me -- multiple sources from multiple sides (three from winning team, two from losing ... whatever it takes). This hasn't went over well in every office I've worked, but it works for me.

I even find myself reading other paper's articles from time to time and scanning for differing sources. And when I don't find them, I stop reading. I just find the one-, two-source (one team, of course) to come off as pure laziness. Not to mention, it doesn't give you both sides to the story. ...

Anyone else?

mike311gd: Either you are writing 25-inch gamers or your game stories are just a bunch of quotes. Jesus H. Christ, I can't fathom interviewing that many people unless I had at least a 20-25 inch hole.

 

[Tom Petty]

When is a homer article become acceptable?

I've spoken to many people in and out of the business, current and former editors about this, and no matter what they say, I give the same response: Never.

I believe in fair, objective reporting, and that means -- to me -- multiple sources from multiple sides (three from winning team, two from losing ... whatever it takes). This hasn't went over well in every office I've worked, but it works for me.

I even find myself reading other paper's articles from time to time and scanning for differing sources. And when I don't find them, I stop reading. I just find the one-, two-source (one team, of course) to come off as pure laziness. Not to mention, it doesn't give you both sides to the story. ...

Anyone else?

mike311gd: Either you are writing 25-inch gamers or your game stories are just a bunch of quotes. Jesus H. Christ, I can't fathom interviewing that many people unless I had at least a 20-25 inch hole.

wow - if mike worked at my shop, i think i'd ask him if he wanted to go for a ride.

come up for a breath of air there hemmingway.

 

[Bob Loblaw Law Blog]

Write for your audience.

That's probably the best advice anyone can give on this thread. I don't think you need five sources for your story to be fair and objective. Personally, I feel that unless you're writing an investigative piece that benefits from as many voices as possible, you should keep it to a minimum. In practice that's usually the home team coach and a home team player. If visiting coach does something interesting strategically or visiting player rushes for 300 yards then, yeah, maybe I'll drop in a quote or two from them. But I think you're going overboard.

 

[Some Guy]

I think it's always wise to at least talk to someone from both sides, if possible. This isn't always possible when you're dealing with preps, though.

Where I live, all the schools play at one central stadium ... they bus there for every game. The coaches are under orders to get the kids back on the buses ASAP after the game. They don't shower, change, or anything. They shake hands and run off. So you usually have to decide which team is more important to talk to, because that's the only one you will be able to catch.

At bigger, college and pro events, it's easier to get quotes from both sides, even if one side comes just from a quote sheet. However, if I'm crunched for space and the quotes are crappy, I'm not going to wedge them in there just to. My space is precious, especially in the era of a shrinking news hole. I'm not going to waste any on an uninteresting quote.

 

[Meat Loaf]

At minimum, one player from each team will be quoted. I'll talk to both coaches for various info. Whether I quote them or not depends on the kind of coach-speak I get. With the final deadline at 11:30, I don't have time to bull**** and ask a question multiple ways and hope for a good quote.

Anyway, I was once told that I shouldn't bother talking to people from outside our circulation area. The thought being: **** 'em, they don't subscribe and our readers don't give a **** about what they have to say. No joke.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Unless on a very tight deadline, I always try to get stuff from both coaches. You want the best quotes, period. If Johnny runs for 210 yards and 3 touchdowns, the other coach is a much better bet to give you a good quote. His coach is worried about Johnny gettting a big head, how having Johnny played up will affect the team, how much bitching he is going to hear from Johnny's parents in the future, etc. The opposing coach has none of those worries and is much more likely to say something like, "We couldn't tackle Johnny if we tried," East Bumble**** coach Bear Bryant said. "We would have the perfect defense called and our linebackers would come up and that kid just bounced right off them."

If the game features an out-of-area team, try to take a chance with their coach or some of their players. If none of the quotes are any good, then you won't feel obligated to include them. But if they are good, they can really add to the story.

 

[jfs1000]

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 **** 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.

 

[mike311gd]

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.

 

[RedCanuck]

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.

 

[zagoshe]

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.

 

[txsportsscribe]

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 **** 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.

 

[Some Guy]

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.

 

[zagoshe]

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.

 

[Meat Loaf]

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.

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.