Who are weekly newspapers covering high school football games for

at our weekly, we post the story the same night on the website...and still run the story in print simply because our coverage consists of a football hotbed so people care either way...

 

You probably mean well, but not only is that attitude improper, it's also a good bit sexist. I've dealt with girls who handle defeat better than their male counterparts. And if anyone's too sensitive to have their public mistakes brought to light, then they shouldn't be playing the games in public. They know the risks when they took to the field/court/mat/ice/pool in a venue where other people can see them.

I'm not exactly advocating a "what the fuck is his problem?" column for the quarterback who throws three interceptions in a high school game, but acting like he didn't do it or that it didn't affect the game is flat-out insulting. And the people there who know what happened will see the story and think "well, we can't depend on this guy to provide the story". And the people who weren't at the game will figure out that "quarterback throws interception" means "Joe Cool throws interception", unless you don't ever mention him. And Mr and Mrs. Cool will probably complain that you even implied that he made the mistakes in the first place. That's a no-win solution.

 

Last I checked, WNBA was played by a bunch of professionals.

 

I work at a weekly, and you really do have to balance the two perspectives you're talking about. Yes, by the time the paper comes out, anyone at the game and anyone with even a passing interest in your local team will know the final outcome and important details of the game. But you can't just entirely ignore them, assuming that everyone already knows. Just don't get into the boring play-by-play, where you describe every mundane detail of every failed drive.

I say focus on what made the game interesting. In your case, this seems to be the fourth-quarter rally and overtime block of the extra point. Really hone in on that and give readers the info they wouldn't get just from sitting in the stands. Interview the coach, the kicker and maybe even the dude who blocked the extra point. Go the extra mile and you'll be rewarded.

 

Some of the best interviews are from the people who "blew the game."

 

Mystery, with all due respect, that has the be the most outrageous comment I've ever seen. You mean to say our teenage daughters (I'm not actually a father, I'm 25) shouldn't sign up for the soccer team if she can't handle the newspaper reporters calling out her on getting beat on a goal? Where are they supposed to play then?

And if a high school quarterback throws three interceptions, why, unless he overcomes that to bring the team back for a dramatic late victory, would you write about him? How about writing about the other team's defense? Or the guy/guys who made the picks? Or whoever else had a big game? I never write about the guys/girls who screwed up -- I'd find a different focus.

 

I think your job, as a prep reporter, is to find the positive angle. Even if it's an angle that focuses on the team you don't cover. Quote the opposing defense, talk about how they had a superior game plan, anything other than trash your local players.

But, that being said, you can't just ignore the fact that the QB threw three interceptions or some kid missed the game-winning kick. You can't write around that.

 

you mean the people who make the most difference -- both good and bad -- have the most insight?

you heard it here first!!

 

Junky, women and girls are not dainty little creatures who can't deal. Come out of the 1800s. We're tougher than most men.

And yea, if somebody makes a mistake that directly leads to the other team winning, you mention the name. Otherwise you're not reporting the full truth.

 

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You've turned your car in the wrong direction and hit the turbobooster on the way there. I never said they shouldn't play sports. I never said that journalists should "call out" people who miss goals. What I'm saying is that there's a responsibility that comes with playing a game that gets you publicity. And that is: it's not always going to be sunshine and candy canes. Mentioning a missed goal or an error is not the same thing as calling Michael Vick an overrated piece of shit (to use a hyperbolic example). It's what happened, right there in the public eye. Not mentioning it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can use tact in writing about it -- hell, you HAVE to -- but to blow it over or concoct some weak cover that everyone's going to see through anyway doesn't do anyone any good.

And it's insulting to the athlete, too, being treated like the winner when you're not. You can't expect or provide Summer Olympics coverage for the winners and Special Olympics coverage for the losers without dropping a lot of credibility in the eyes of your readers.

As for the quarterback example: How do we mention what the defense did? You can't say they had interceptions -- that might make the quarterback feel bad! If you don't mention the quarterback, does everyone forget who it was? Hardly. So you either report the news as it happens or completely gloss over the whole thing.

Allow me to pose a hypothetical: Regional softball final. Winner goes to the state tournament, loser goes home. Score's tied 3-3 in the bottom of the seventh inning. Two outs, nobody on. Batter lays a bunt (it's softball, they bunt at every damned opportunity). Catcher picks it up, fires it six feet over the first basemen's head to right field. Runner gets to first, turns the corner for second. Right fielder gets to the ball but bobbles it. Runner moves towards third. Right fielder throws the ball towards third, but it goes off the third baseman's glove and into left field. Runner scores, game's over.

What's your lead look like?

 

i think he'd probably score it an inside the park home run ... nobody gets hurt that way, facts be damned.