To narc? Or not to narc?

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm not YankeeFan. Every newspaper should write the story. They just shouldn't put a dateline and byline on it.

 

Sheesh. You can't teach news judgment.

Many of you are treating all these considerations as though they have to all fall in line one way -- he's a fraud! -- before you do the story.

No, first you pin down the facts: where is he, what does his editor know, what have they told the readers. Are they doing this out of compassion, balancing that over honesty? All that goes in the story. It's what makes the story solid.

Then you gather facts and opinions on the gray areas, and they all go in the story, too: What's the industry standard on datelines? Do these things matter even if readers don't notice? (Does it matter if restaurant workers don't wash their hands in the bathroom if the diners don't notice?) You could get a good bar fight going on all these questions, and they all go in the story (and in the comments below the story). That's what makes the story rich.

Embrace the complexity. That's where the news is.

You've been handed a story that every sports reader will read and remember, if you do it right, and a story that every person in your own business will read and remember, if you do it right, and you're going to back off because you can't tell the difference between reporting the news and "narcing"? Then go into some other business.

Don't forget to interview the young sportswriter who still believes in doing the job right but couldn't get a job at that newspaper.

P.S. It's "I'm not writing a story, dude," not "I'm not writing a story dude." As the saying goes, commas save lives ("Let's eat Grandma" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma.")

 

What about dateline and no byline?

 

That's debatable. The argument for is that it tells readers where the game happened.

 

Well, he doesn't cover the Rangers, according to the Rangers.

5 to go.

 

Hey now! I'm on your side.

He's being obtuse.

The examples he's giving can be broken into a few categories:

- Folks who weren't able to get seats in the main press box. They attended the event. Had access to coaches, players, and league officials before and after the event. They could take in the atmosphere in the arena/stadium. They could interact with fans if they chose to. Where they sat was no their choosing. They did not deceive their readers or try to cut any corners.

- Folks who covered an event -- NASCAR, PGA, etc. -- where using a TV monitor for a part of the event helps the to better report on the event. Again, they were there, etc. No issue. No crime. No fraud. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

- Folks who abused their credential. These folks should be called out too. Is someone making excuses for them?

 

A helpful chart:

 

That's not weird at all.

 

Of course, but you don't put a reporter's byline on it. Dateline and "Staff Reports" or no byline is fine to indicate the locale, although the story would indicate the game was on the road. Adding a reporter's byline and dateline, thus indicating said reporter was at PODUNK for the game, is not acceptable.

Johnny Reporter sitting at home and sending in a bylined, datelined story is unacceptable.

 

What if you call the coach on his cell after the game for some comments? What if you're not even following the game, the coach calls in the results, someonen has set a school record, you interview the coach and record-setter over the phone and even track down the other coach for a comment before deadline -- deserve a dateline and byline?

 

No dateline. Jesus fucking Christ, this isn't hard. Consult the chart.

 

Holy hell... Do all of these people really not know how datelines are supposed to be used?