Dan Wetzel on McCoy and Gilbert last night

[txsportsscribe]

I like this piece, I said.

how do we know you really said that to yourself?

 

[DanOregon]

This thread reminds me of that Disney movie Pocohantas. People were complaining about the historical inaccuracies, but didn't have a problem with the singing animals.

I'm not even really sure what that means, but it's a heck of a line.

You can knit-pick something to death. If Wetzel was aiming to write the definitive historical account of the game - he failed. Also, there wasn't enough Alabama stuff it in.
I'm thinking he saw an opening to take a different tack than other writers. As a reader, I understand that from the jump. And I think the results more than make up for any minor attribution quibbles.

 

[Sneed]

Agree with you, DO. The best columnists always look for the most unique angles and Wetzel drilled this one. His story was about what everyone was wondering: What happened to Colt McCoy?

As masterfully as one can write in such a short time frame, he intertwined Gilbert's impact on the game and McCoy's impact on Gilbert. The drama of the game wasn't the game, not to me at least. It was this Texas freshman forced in because the Longhorns' leader got knocked out. It was Gilbert playing like a freshman and the game getting out of hand, then Gilbert making it a ballgame again. It was why Gilbert could do that.

And it was McCoy crying, unable to throw a ball 7 yards in the biggest game of his career when he grew up throwing a ball 7 yards. It was McCoy then doing all he could to win by giving Gilbert everything he could.

I'm sure Wetzel wishes he could have reworded a sentence here or there, or done a little better regarding the "McCoy never gets hurt" line. But on the whole? He captured the spirit of what happened. He wrote like a good columnist writes. And as a young guy working my way up, I hope to turn in something like that some day.

 

[smsu_scribe]

Totally agree, Sneed. I would've loved to have just seen how Wetzel went about his reporting for the piece, since I've tried but never totally succeeded in putting together that type of story. How deep did he have to dig to get the anecdotes? And what/how many questions did he ask? Who all did he have to talk to in order to piece the scene together?

I don't know. I'm quite new, so I'm always curious how any of the great ones go about their reporting. I find myself almost more entranced with the reporting side of great stories than the writing side. Reporting talent seems to separate the great ones from the good as much as writing ability.

 

[Double Down]

Honestly, I think the first key to being a good reporter is being a good listener. Really listen. Don't walk over someone to get to your next question. If the subject isn't going anywhere, silence can be your friend. Ask your question, then shut up. Listen. So many reporters don't really listen. If you're listening, you'll know what follow up questions to ask. Ask for details. Great writing IS great reporting, smsu_scribe. The reason why Wetzel and Wright Thompson and Chris Jones and Lee Jenkins and Eli Saslow and many young-ish talents like them (people closer to your age you can emulate) can write so well is because they're very good at asking questions, then knowing how to ask the NEXT question.

Some of you all are confusing Wetzel's comment about the locker rooms being open (at all) with the idea that the locker rooms were open at halftime. What Wetzel was saying is, the locker rooms were open after the game, and that's where he was able to get McCoy, his dad, maybe a trainer, to set the scene of what happened at halftime. You don't get to ask the kind of questions that would let you write this piece if all they do is bring McCoy to the presser and stick him behind a mic with 400 other reporters. That's what he was saying. I know that obvious to some of you, but I just wanted to clear that up.

 

[joe king]

This thread reminds me of that Disney movie Pocohantas. People were complaining about the historical inaccuracies, but didn't have a problem with the singing animals.

I'm not even really sure what that means, but it's a heck of a line.

You can knit-pick something to death. If Wetzel was aiming to write the definitive historical account of the game - he failed. Also, there wasn't enough Alabama stuff it in.
I'm thinking he saw an opening to take a different tack than other writers. As a reader, I understand that from the jump. And I think the results more than make up for any minor attribution quibbles.

As one of the resident anal editor-types here, I applaud you for using ``tack'' correctly. Most people will say ``tact'' in that usage, which is wrong.

On the other hand, not to be nit-picky, but it's``nit-pick,'' not ``knit-pick.''

Carry on.

 

[joe king]

Totally agree, Sneed. I would've loved to have just seen how Wetzel went about his reporting for the piece, since I've tried but never totally succeeded in putting together that type of story. How deep did he have to dig to get the anecdotes? And what/how many questions did he ask? Who all did he have to talk to in order to piece the scene together?

I don't know. I'm quite new, so I'm always curious how any of the great ones go about their reporting. I find myself almost more entranced with the reporting side of great stories than the writing side. Reporting talent seems to separate the great ones from the good far more than as much as writing ability.

Fixed.

 

[buckweaver]

Question: Where was Wetzel before Yahoo? I can't find anything about him on Teh Googlez.

 

[Sneed]

That's a great question, buck. I'd like to know, too.

 

[Double Down]

Wetzel wrote books, did freelance, worked at a website called HoopsTV.com, then was at Sportsline (which I'm surprised people don't remember) then was one of Yahoo's first hires. One of my favorite factoids about him, though, was that he dealt cards at a casino in Michigan for awhile to make ends meet in between journalism jobs.

 

[jaredk]

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2006/11/28/from-casino-dealer-in-detroit-to-yahoo-sports-columnist-an-interview-with-dan-wetzel/

 

[Cosmo]

Honestly, I think the first key to being a good reporter is being a good listener. Really listen. Don't walk over someone to get to your next question. If the subject isn't going anywhere, silence can be your friend. Ask your question, then shut up. Listen. So many reporters don't really listen. If you're listening, you'll know what follow up questions to ask. Ask for details. Great writing IS great reporting, smsu_scribe. The reason why Wetzel and Wright Thompson and Chris Jones and Lee Jenkins and Eli Saslow and many young-ish talents like them (people closer to your age you can emulate) can write so well is because they're very good at asking questions, then knowing how to ask the NEXT question.

Some of you all are confusing Wetzel's comment about the locker rooms being open (at all) with the idea that the locker rooms were open at halftime. What Wetzel was saying is, the locker rooms were open after the game, and that's where he was able to get McCoy, his dad, maybe a trainer, to set the scene of what happened at halftime. You don't get to ask the kind of questions that would let you write this piece if all they do is bring McCoy to the presser and stick him behind a mic with 400 other reporters. That's what he was saying. I know that obvious to some of you, but I just wanted to clear that up.

This is why one-on-one access is so freaking important in this business. No one ever gets comfortable enough sitting behind a mic in front of 200 people to really open up. I've found I've had the most success with getting people to open up by having conversational interviews with them and not just asking a scripted list of questions. I have a vague idea of what I'm looking for, ask something that will open that door and then follow up off of things the person says. Interviewing really is a skill, and a lost art in today's "troll for a sound bite" age of sports journalism.