enough about conflict of interest, let's see some APSE results!

Not only does Jenks check in, he does it with a Simpsons avatar.
Slurpees on me, Jenks.

 

Kinda looks like me, too. How you doin', Patchs?

 

If you honestly can't see the conflict, well, not to be unkind, but I'd say you're probably where you belong now.

 

Freezing my ass off here but doing well.
I'll tell you this Jenks, never a dull moment with you, that's for sure.
I hope we're going to see more of you here, it would make this place even more fun.

 

Earth to APSE: It ain't working.

 

Fenian: I didn't say that I didn't see the conflict. I do, but that does not automatically mean that I can't be a good judge. And probably more objective than one that has a horse in the race.

 

Agreed.

 

Some may disagree, but I think the arguments have been just about exhausted here.

 

Yeah, it's all about you. [/sarcasm] This is exactly the point. Everyone who has a conflict of interest believes they are the lone exception who can be fair in spite of it.

It was a thoroughly selfish decision. You didn't want to back down, so you allowed APSE to be subjected to negative attention here and on Romenesko. And for what?

 

On a more positive note ...
Were any of the winners (sections and/or individuals) surprising? In a good way? Maybe somebody you saw on the list and thought, "I didn't know that person was good."

We've wanked on the process and moaned for the losers, but the good news is a bunch of people in our industry last week were celebrated for excellence. That ought to be worth a shout-out or two.

 

Two things jumped out at me, Moondoggy ...

The Lincoln paper's Triple Crown and the noticeable absence of Hartford in the section categories. Kudos to the folks in Lincoln.

The Oklahoman also landed a few plaudits. Back when I lived in that neck of the woods, that paper wasn't all that good. Sounds like things are looking up there.

As for that KC paper? Well ... nothing surprises me with them.

 

Reading this thread, I agree there might be a problem with the section judging. There shouldn't be 200 papers in one group and 34 in another. It should be evened out.

As for the individual writing awards. I don't think it's as big of a problem. As someone who's worked at a 5,000 daily, 55,000 daily and now 170,000 daily, I think people fail to remember the difference in amount of journalists papers have.

yes, in the 40,000 and under category there are 200 papers, but none of those papers have 10 people working in sports. I'd be willing to bet that most have 3 or fewer writers.

Now, there might only be 34 papers in the large section, but how many sports reporters does each one of those papers have? You're talking about papers who have 30 or more sports writers. Truthfully, for an individual award, you're competing against your co-workers' best stuff, too.

So maybe the answer is to change the current format for sections but keep the format for writing. Or maybe I'm way off.