APSE results

I understand their problem, though; they really don't have enough judges to make sure everybody is on a category other than their own, and the bigger papers are more likely to send people than smaller ones.

 

It shouldn't happen. Period. Just like last year when an MLB.com employee was judging. Shouldn't happen. No justification. They've got to work harder to eliminate the conflicts of interest. It doesn't play well when you force writers to jump through a zillion hoops to prepare their entries to eliminate any chance of impropriety, and then every year allow all these conflicts of interest and chalk it up to logistics.

Do better.

 

True, that. On the other hand, the editor in charge of judging made no effort to avoid the problem. It's like booking a sports section: You do it the first time and then you swap things around to avoid conflicts. This was not done, perhaps because the Guy in Charge wanted his buddies to have the prestige of judging "big papers." Again, I don't think it was a conspiracy, just "taking care of" his friends.

 

I just re-read the judges' roster. This was incredibly stupid:

The most controversy is generated by the section judging. The chairs of these committees have a lot of pull.

In daily sections over 250K, the chair was from the KC Star, which was honored in that category. Probably deserved, but what if it wasn't ? And does that chair have any biases (subconsciously perhaps) against any big-paper competitors?

In Sunday over 250,000, the chair was from the Boston Globe. Surely the Globe deserved its top-10 placing, but see concern above.

In special sections over 250,000, the chair was from the NYDN. The Daily News, yes, was in the top 10 in that category.

Were there any experienced judges on hand from, say, the 100,000-250,000 categories who could have been chairs for big-section judging? I bet there were a few good ones.

As we so often write in stories and columns, it's best to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Exactly. There also were editors there from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (which is in the mid-size category) and the Palm Beach Post. I'm guessing they both had experience. Not to mention the AP editor her own self.

 

Who put together the judge rosters?

 

For years, I've sworn that the judging wasn't biased. But this year makes you wonder.

There were some stunningly awful section selections — especially in the 100-250 category.

And interesting that the first year the AJC doesn't send someone to vote is the first year it gets shut out of a top-10 section. It's gone downhill recently but only very recently. For much of 2008, its Sunday section was still pretty good.

 

worth repeating

 

I'm not sure the AJC could win a top 10 in the under 40K category these days.

 

Almost every large paper has been walloped.

 

I'll admit it. The year I got a second place was the year my boss was a judge. When the results came out I asked him what he judged and he was very vague, said something about major metros and that was it. Since I wrote much better stories that year than the one that won, I have to believe he judged my category.

Oh, and the two times I've judged state contests? I was the only one judging sports (writing and sections). Color me cynical about contests.