This children is why we don't inject ourselves into features

[doogie448]

Full disclosure: I had never heard of Tim Layden before this article.

I would have kicked this back to him when I was in college, I'm surprised SI allowed it. He has a good story to tell here without making himself part of it. As I read this I kept thinking: Get off my story!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/tim_layden/06/26/track-field-photo-finish-felix-tarmoh/index.html#ixzz1z2Jtp9Uy

By interjecting himself he raises more questions than answers. Why don't the two companies want their names listed? Why do I have to Google the main characters and do the writer's leg work? Why does his observation bring any more credibility to Roger Jennings?

Tell me the story, and if you edit out the the I's and parentheses, you have a good story there.

 

[Ace]

Ironically, I was on an investment banking message board just the other day where I noted I had never heard of Warren Buffet but couldn't believe some of the crazy investments he made.

Oh, and doogie, here are some extra commas ,,,,, Go ahead an sprinkle them in your headline.

 

[doogie448]

How about you sprinkle some silence on your smart-ass responses? If you don't want to have a grown-up discussion don't reply.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

How about you learn to punctuate if you're going to post on a journalism board and purport to be grown up about it?

 

[Double Down]

If this is the first you've heard of Tim Layden, you've lost all credibility with me before we even begin.

 

[doogie448]

Fine. I'm an idiot. Moderator on duty, please shut this thread down and remove it.

 

[Ace]

How about you sprinkle some silence on your smart-ass responses? If you don't want to have a grown-up discussion don't reply.

OK.

In an item where you complain about the writer injecting himself in the story, you have 9 I's, me's or my's.

If you want to comment on the way a story is written, why not do it without injecting yourself into the discussion?

 

[SixToe]

If this is the first you've heard of Tim Layden, you've lost all credibility with me before we even begin.

^^^ This, definitely, Mr. Sprinkle.

 

[Stitch]

Full disclosure: I had never heard of Tim Layden before this article.

I would have kicked this back to him when I was in college, I'm surprised SI allowed it. He has a good story to tell here without making himself part of it. As I read this I kept thinking: Get off my story!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/tim_layden/06/26/track-field-photo-finish-felix-tarmoh/index.html#ixzz1z2Jtp9Uy

By interjecting himself he raises more questions than answers. Why don't the two companies want their names listed? Why do I have to Google the main characters and do the writer's leg work? Why does his observation bring any more credibility to Roger Jennings?

Tell me the story, and if you edit out the the I's and parentheses, you have a good story there.

Layden mentioned why he didn't name the companies.

 

[writingump]

I disagree with Doogie's criticism of Layden's article. I don't think he injected himself into the column that often. I think it gave the person who only casually follows track and field (such as myself and most sports fans) a solid glimpse into why it was ruled a dead heat, as well as a nice history lesson in the sport. I, too, am shocked he'd never heard of Layden until now.

 

[HanSenSE]

Fine. I'm an idiot. Moderator on duty, please shut this thread down and remove it.

And hurry before he takes his ball and goes home!

 

[dirtybird]

Is the OP complaining about the asides? I don't see that much injection of the writer.

 

[Harry Doyle]

Is the OP complaining about the asides? I don't see that much injection of the writer.

It seems the issue is with the Company X/Company Z bit, which is actually kind of comical and Layden seems to make fun of.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Here's doogie planning his next post:

 

[HejiraHenry]

This is a very good story. (As the former Olympic editor as a Very Large Newspaper, I think I have the background to say that.)

It accomplishes exactly what it set out to do, to explain the photo finish question in plain English.

 

[bpoindexter]

OK, I'll at least read the story before I **** on doogie. Back in a few.

 

[Versatile]

Tim Layden has more Sports Illustrated cover stories than anyone the past five years.

I don't even know why I'm still processing how someone on a message board such as this one could say they've never heard of him.

Stay trollin'.

 

[bpoindexter]

OK, my 2 cents, or whatever less it's worth: I agree with doogie in that the "I's" could have been avoided. That said, I'm of the opinion that didn't make him part of the story. And, I still liked the story very much.

The companies should have been named. Not naming them but saying, "If you Google this, you'll find the names" didn't make the story any better, which is what editing still is supposed to do, the current style of 99.9 percent of all Web sites notwithstanding.

And that's all I can see: Good story, behind-the-scenes look, lacked editing, still damn good. Good night.

 

[JohnnyChan]

Also ... this is a column. Folks may not like first person but it's surely a part of the rules of the game, especially in the capable hands of Tim Layden.

 

[Riptide]

Say, how about some commas in that headline? Thanks. :-X