Should I write it or not?

I'm with SF -- I think it would make an interesting column and get people talking. But I'd definitely find out why she wasn't picked and get quotes from whomever does the deciding there...

Never acknowledge the competition? Why not? Sounds like an outdated rule.

 

In this given situaiton, I say it's not worth it. But in general I'm not averse to going toe to toe with the competition. Some of the best stories I've read are when papers go back and forth. I recall one in Las Vegas where the R-J was hoodwinked by a local family trying to make it seem like they were serious bidders for the Minnesota Vikings. The Sun figured out the scam (something about using the Vikings publicity to gain social prominence and then stealing money from a charity) and reported on it. Instead of droppng it, the R-J came back and defended their orginal story and continued to cover it as if they were right and the family were legit bidders-- even after the Vikings were quoted in the Sun as saying they were kooks. Let's just say it didn't end well for the R-J, but it was a hell of a ride for a few weeks. Each story quoted/named/went after the other paper with every story.

 

I think NEVER is too strong. I don't suggest mentioning a competitor on a regular basis, but there are occasions when I believe its merely being truthful to acknowledge that there is more than one newspaper in town. To pretend it doesn't exist mkaes one appear too self-interested and I think newspapers should strive to be above that to some degree.
I agree with "published reports", but media-competitive cities (New York, Chicago, Toronto) don't shy away from mentioning the competition on occasion (usually derogatorily.)
In this thread's case, I agree that a column ripping another paper's subjective rankings isn't appropriate.
If you want to point out the omission, just do a big piece on the girl and how she is attracting all sorts of state attention. It subtley points out that the other paper missed the boat.

 

Fair enough, y'all. I retract "never" from my previous comments.

I still contend that this strategy works better in media-competitive markets like N.Y./L.A./Chicago, etc.

I don't think it works nearly as well when it's the Perimeter Daily calling out Suburban Metro, though. Just reeks of smalltownism, and I think it chips away at a paper's credibility, in most cases. Not worth wasting your time.

 

Best way to describe it, best answer yet.

 

Quote buy print (my way of trying to get an ad catchphrase over as a popular term for slam dunk and because Erin E-Surance is hot).

My small-town paper story: I covered a pretty nationally-big breaking news story because I happened to be in the neighborhood when it took place. I wrote up a respectable story and sent it in to my paper (a PMer). The next morning the ME called me to say he liked it, and that he also added in stuff from two AP stories, including one that had information attributed to the L.A. Times and the local metro. Then he said he cut the local metro's name out, because "we don't want to give them credit." A bush-league move, I thought, but what was I going to do about it?

Going after the metro smacks of tinytown jealousy/sniping (even if it's not) and I wouldn't recommend it.

 

I kind of agree with this. I wouldn't say it is good to make a habit of mentioning another paper if for no other reason than it might be an easy way out. But there are times when mentioning another paper is approrpiate.

 

I think a column is written to state your opinion. As long as you don't directly insult the newspaper and support your opinion with facts, there is no reason not to write this column.

 

I do think you could write it without the mention.

But my question is this: Was it the other paper's team, or was it a coach-selected team that ran in the other paper.

If it was coach-selected, I think you have a valid point.