Contests: Why should I enter them?

I think the annual process of winnowing through your work and seeing whether you think ypu've done anything of substance -- and whether you have improved in the year since you last say down and looked at your work -- is quite helpful.

Beyond that, contests that provide critiques -- and the Virginia Press Association was/is an example -- can be a lot of help in giving you another perspective.

 

Lotteries are about luck. These contests are somewhat a reflection of your ability to do your job.

 

Speaking for myself, I can tell you it is that much sweeter to win if you do so after a number of years of "getting kicked in the nuts."

When I first started in radio, I won state awards out the wazoo, but those mean nothing to me today.

But there's another award I won recently after many years of zilch that means a lot to me. The rejections forced me to get better, and I understand now that I never should have won before.

 

sp, you've obviously got a serious lack of confidence. That's not just from this thread; it's from most of your threads.

Actually, winning a contest would be the best thing in the world for you personally, IMHO. But if you can't handle the possibility of being less than No. 1, it's probably not worth the effort. Unless you can understand that losing in a contest could very well mean that you were the second-best entry.

There are some who wear "I don't care about winning contests" as a badge of honor. Hell, I think it's great being recognized by your peers. Even if they're wrong!

 

Smallpotatoes, you’ll get yours, if you want them. Every reporter, editor and columnist who stays in the game gets awards. The question you rightly ask is whether you should want them, whether you should bother with them.
I used to think awards were like hors d’oeuvres passed around at a party. They would slake the appetite and mollify the crowd so that few partygoers even cared when they found out no dinner was going to be served. And a crowd that’s overworked and underpaid generally needs to be mollified.
Anyway, I always thought awards were harmless enough, but now I’m not so sure.
Some reporters, editors and columnists, you’ve probably noticed, frequently focus on awards. In some cases, their focus is so intense and engrossing that they produce work that exists only to compete for some award, but is otherwise irrelevant. (I could cite several examples.) Instead of working to inform and serve their community, or enlighten and entertain their readers, they work to impress some committee. In other words, they completely lose sight of their audience.
These awards make beggars of us all. With our entries, we desperately beg for approval, just as surely as if we got up on our hind legs and barked. We spend hours going through our work and then cutting and copying and mailing, and for what? In the hope that some committee will say we’re worthwhile? We can’t show the world a gaudy paycheck, which has become the modern measure of worth, or any of the ornaments of success, and so we hope that at least we can brandish some little APSE plaque. It’s all rather pitiful.
And then there’s the validity of the awards. Or lack of validity. I’ve known several people, usually editors, who have served on these committees that select the award winners, and some of them have been as oblivious to good writing and good journalism as they were to tectonic plate movement. (Think Bob Yates.) As a result, all of us can think of several absurdly unworthy award winners. And should we expect anything else? Did these people become editors because of their sensitivity to language and their unerring grasp of what makes a great story? Of course not.
As soon as I post this, somebody will rush forward to accuse me of bitterness and to suggest that I’m angry because I didn’t win some award or other, as if everything must have an ulterior motive and the only interst is self-interest. Well, in truth, I’ve won my share of awards, some of them, I admit, quite undeservedly. And I’ve been disappointed a few times when I thought I should have won something. In that, I’m like anybody who’s been in the game a while.
No, the reason for posting this is to suggest to Smallpotatoes that if his editors value awards, and if winning some of these baubles will advance his career, then he might play along. But I suggest he consider the possibility that these awards could be distracting and demeaning; most of all, I suggest he remember that the only meaningful award is the respect of his peers and readers.

 

Where I am, so many people win state press association awards that if I don't win anything, I feel like one of the five NHL teams that didn't make the playoffs back when it was a 21-team league with a 16-team playoffs.

(holy fuck, what an awkward analogy. and I wonder why I don't win anything)

 

Speaking of not winning, Marist is good, so your message to the left is inane.

 

No it's not. I have a high standard for my alma mater. Though to be fair, it's the Virginia Tech loss that I'm rolling my eyes about now.

 

Maybe if your standard is for ODU to be a top-20 team, losing at Marist would be bad. Otherwise, I think you're just not familiar enough with this year's Marist team.

 

Mayhaps. I just know that ODU beat them handily last year and this year's loss didn't look as good when I originally posted that. Now I'll probably change it to express my displeasure at something else.

 

Yeah, give me something when you lose (again) to Hofstra.

 

Hey now, we beat them when it counts! The secondary postseason tournament!