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

Who beat?

 

All the f'n studs, dude. All the f'n studs.

 

This was a nice slap upside the head. Or gut check. Or slap upside the gut. Whatever. But it's the truth.

(Got to admit, I give bonus points to folks who post by their real names. Like me. : )

 

Anyone else notice the DMN took the big sombrero in the writing categories?

 

I don't believe that was unprecedented for them, even before the cutbacks. I've always had kind of a problem with that, not just as it relates to the DMN but any section that wins a section award without getting even an honorable mention in any writing category. And the opposite happens, too -- I think it was four or five years ago when the SF Chron did very well in the writing awards and got zilch in sections. I understand the writing and section awards are judged independently. I understand that, in theory, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. But I think if a section can't get even an honorable mention in any writing category, what's really being honored is display of vast resources or packaging sleight-of-hand or both, and that is a bit shallow for my taste.

 

My congrats for the fine folks in Lincoln stands. Winning the Triple Crown is a hell of an achievement. The fact that they didn't win any writing awards does not take away from that.

 

What Posnanski accomplished in this year's Top 10s is flat-out phenomenal. Heck, what the entire Star did has to be unprecedented. Both columnists place, all three feature entries place and two gamers place. Wow.

 

I say the same here. Joe Pos continues to prove that he's the best sports writer and columnist in the country, at least for my money.

I live nowhere near KC, but I make sure I read him every time.

But I hate this awards shit. Good Ol' Boys club still doing the same, though we have won a few again, but our staff keeps getting cut.

I don't think we'll win a few next year. They'll probably cut our staff because of that.

 

So what are you saying here? Is there someone you'd recommend otherwise?

I agree, though. Good writers -- and good editors -- are everywhere, if you look for them. I don't need a contest to tell me I'm kicking ass on deadline every fricking night without fail, but I would like the polished suits in my newsroom to stop by once in a while, remind me that they know who I am, and maybe then we might even get to know each other a little and talk about what might be important here, other than banging out pages with no regard about what it might take to really present great stuff on those pages.

 

I would like to know how many of the under 40,000s are below 20K.

If this new division doesn't go through, a hell of a lot of small papers are checking it in. And if the poll that's going around in our region and may I assume, others, that asks our thoughts about a higher fee for the upper end of that division gets thumbs down, then I suggest a reduced rate for the lower end. Again, from what I'm hearing, there's going to be a significant exodus if something isn't done or a sharp reduction of entries in 2009.

 

The proposal was voted down yesterday. It was the papers over 175K that complained the loudest. Also, it didn't appear as if there were that many under 25Ks entering the contest in the first place, though I thought the argument could be made that they would enter if the new division was created. Chicken and the Egg, I suppose.

Also, to go back to what is being said about beat reporting, yes, there are a lot of unsung beat reporters out there that should be recognized. The question is, how do you do it? What's the criteria? I'm all for it if that could be ironed out. We've got one heckuva beat writer in our department as well who hardly ever gets the recognition he deserves.