Reporter gets coach suspended for inappropriate comment....

[stix]

Fair enough, all good points. I get timeliness, I guess some of my issues with this story come with my dissatisfaction of the "get it out there as fast as you can" atmosphere of social media (and trust me, this reporter subscribes to that fully and is clearly enjoying the small stir his story created).

He's not inaccurate, and I get that it's important and not unethical at all to report this. But I felt like the reporting sucked and lacked any meaningful context. It was more "OOOHH, look what this coach said!" than reporting.

BTW, I'd share the story, but I dont want to give away the reporter's identity. I'm not going to do that.

 

[BrendaStarr]

Well, it wasn't too hard to find via a Google search and yeah, it was an oddly written story and you're right about it turning into a column halfway through. Something like this should be written as a story and then probably a sidebar column. But having both in the same story is jarring and preachy.

 

[JRoyal]

Man that was bad writing. Should've been handled much different but definitely should've been mentioned.

 

[stix]

Yeah, I figured you could find it without a problem if you wanted.

I guess my problem all along was with the writing and reporting, not with the subject matter.

 

[stix]

I actually thought the lede was pretty decent, oddly enough. But then he abandoned it, went into a nuts and bolts gamer, then into that bizarre column/diatribe thing.

Definitely the call there is to do a separate column/sidebar. Plus that could help you with timeliness. Mention it in gamer, then maybe take s day or two to gather info and reaction for a column.

 

[Flip Wilson]

I actually thought the lede was pretty decent, oddly enough. But then he abandoned it, went into a nuts and bolts gamer, then into that bizarre column/diatribe thing.

Definitely the call there is to do a separate column/sidebar. Plus that could help you with timeliness. Mention it in gamer, then maybe take s day or two to gather info and reaction for a column.

Yeah, the gamer was decent, but it just went off the track. The column part of that story wasn't well-written, and, contrary to that writer's opinion (and the opinion of many coaches and a radio guy I used to travel with) these players do not go to war every Friday night. They play a game. Yes, it's a violent game, but it is not a war.

 

[da man]

Short answer to your question: Yes, it's news.

 

[SBR]

You guys have probably all been in a predicament like this, where you heard a coach or player say something off-color on the sidelines in the heat of a game. I'm not saying what the reporter did here was wrong, but I've been discussing this a lot the last few days. Just wondering what you guys would've done. Kind of a tough spot.

I wouldn't touch it. It was an obnoxious comment by a frustrated coach who went too far trying to work the refs. Big whoop. I don't go around trying to sniff out every off-color comment made by a coach so I can put quote marks around it.

If it caused an actual fight to break out or something then you'd be obligated to report it. But otherwise I'd leave it alone. Not news. Never mind using it as an excuse to turn your game story into some dumbass diatribe.

 

[murphyc]

stix, I agree with some of your points. The story quickly jumped off the rails once it became a quasi column. Just some truly bad writing, as others have noted. And mentioning how many shares a quote got? If it got 100+ shares or was by far the most shared or commented on post in that paper's history, then I could see justification for including it. But this has been shared 10 times? So what?
That said, I am scratching my head about some of the other quibbles.

It got quite a bit of juice, especially since this reporter tweets, Facebooks and retweets every single thing he ever does, so it caught attention.

A lot of reporters do this, kinda the nature of the beast these days. At a lot of newspapers, wouldn't bosses consider this a good thing? So is your issue with the trend in general or this particular person or someone from this particular small paper doing it?

If not for the reporter's calling attention to the remark, I highly doubt there would've been a suspension (it was never made clear he was ejected for that comment or for general malfeasance).

So the officials waited until seeing the story with the quote and then decided to suspend the coach? Is that what you're trying to argue here? Sorry, but this comes across as being a homer for the coach to me.

I have some issues with this: I understand that it's a reporter's job to cover news, but is this news? Nowhere in the story did he make it clear that anyone was offended or even heard the remark. He never offered the coach a chance to comment on his remark. If you're going to report something like that, seems to me you at least give the coach a chance to comment, or to say "no comment." And you'd better be damn forking sure you heard what you thought you heard and corroborate it with another person or two. I know I would.

1. A young man is laying on the ground motionless for 20 minutes and the opposing coach plays the race card about a penalty. Both the comment and the timing of the comment make it news. I'm struggling to understand why that is even a question.
2. The fourth graf makes it pretty clear plenty of people heard the comment. Who cares if they were offended?
3. Odds are the reporter didn't offer the coach a chance to comment on his remark, because such an exchange isn't written about. But we don't know for sure if he asked the coach and got blown off. Likewise, how do you know from this story he didn't corroborate with other people? And as others have said, the coach didn't come out and say he was quoted inaccurately.

I'm wondering if the reporter only heard it because he was on the sidelines.

So the reporter is in the wrong for being on the sidelines during a game? Is there some jealousy that he got the quote and your paper didn't? Yes, he probably got the quote because he was within earshot and may not have heard it if he was upstairs. I always covered prep football games from the sidelines in part because I was taking photos as well. My only possible issue with this guy's reporting from the sideline isn't the quote but running a photo of the injured player being carted off. To me, that's more of an ethical quandry than running the quote.

Bottom line, coach said something stupid and got called on it. He created the news himself and got himself suspended. Have issues with the way the reporter wrote the story? That makes total sense, because it wasn't well written. Have issues with the reporter enjoying the social media limelight his story created? That's a great topic for discussion, since that has become so prevalent in the industry. But a reporter blaming a fellow reporter for doing his job makes me scratch my head a bit.

 

[dixiehack]

Everywhere I've been, an ejected coach wouldn't be allowed to stay on the premises for any post game chitchat.

 

[stix]

stix, I agree with some of your points. The story quickly jumped off the rails once it became a quasi column. Just some truly bad writing, as others have noted. And mentioning how many shares a quote got? If it got 100+ shares or was by far the most shared or commented on post in that paper's history, then I could see justification for including it. But this has been shared 10 times? So what?
That said, I am scratching my head about some of the other quibbles.


A lot of reporters do this, kinda the nature of the beast these days. At a lot of newspapers, wouldn't bosses consider this a good thing? So is your issue with the trend in general or this particular person or someone from this particular small paper doing it?


So the officials waited until seeing the story with the quote and then decided to suspend the coach? Is that what you're trying to argue here? Sorry, but this comes across as being a homer for the coach to me.


1. A young man is laying on the ground motionless for 20 minutes and the opposing coach plays the race card about a penalty. Both the comment and the timing of the comment make it news. I'm struggling to understand why that is even a question.
2. The fourth graf makes it pretty clear plenty of people heard the comment. Who cares if they were offended?
3. Odds are the reporter didn't offer the coach a chance to comment on his remark, because such an exchange isn't written about. But we don't know for sure if he asked the coach and got blown off. Likewise, how do you know from this story he didn't corroborate with other people? And as others have said, the coach didn't come out and say he was quoted inaccurately.


So the reporter is in the wrong for being on the sidelines during a game? Is there some jealousy that he got the quote and your paper didn't? Yes, he probably got the quote because he was within earshot and may not have heard it if he was upstairs. I always covered prep football games from the sidelines in part because I was taking photos as well. My only possible issue with this guy's reporting from the sideline isn't the quote but running a photo of the injured player being carted off. To me, that's more of an ethical quandry than running the quote.

Bottom line, coach said something stupid and got called on it. He created the news himself and got himself suspended. Have issues with the way the reporter wrote the story? That makes total sense, because it wasn't well written. Have issues with the reporter enjoying the social media limelight his story created? That's a great topic for discussion, since that has become so prevalent in the industry. But a reporter blaming a fellow reporter for doing his job makes me scratch my head a bit.

I didn't want to come off as "blaming" him, nor was I jealous. I've done this for a long time, I don't need validation personally. You certainly make good points here. That's why I posted in the first place, to see what others thought. Part of it is the story was poorly written, part of it is you kind of have to know this guy to understand it more. He's interjected himself into stories before and asked questions that were obviously aimed at "baiting" coaches. Very stupid questions, too, believe me. I'm not a fan of that stuff.

But you make fair points. To clarify, the official ejected the coach immediately because it was his second personal foul. It's a rule here. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

And to be fair to the reporter, he did have a follow-up today that was pretty detailed and well-reported about his attempts to contact the offending coach and what the injured player went through. It was pretty well-done, I'll admit, though once again he devolved into a preachy, column-type of deal at the end that was just odd.

And he wrote, "The storm is over. For now." Not for now. It's over.

 

[stix]

I wouldn't touch it. It was an obnoxious comment by a frustrated coach who went too far trying to work the refs. Big whoop. I don't go around trying to sniff out every off-color comment made by a coach so I can put quote marks around it.

If it caused an actual fight to break out or something then you'd be obligated to report it. But otherwise I'd leave it alone. Not news. Never mind using it as an excuse to turn your game story into some dumbass diatribe.

Yes, this was exactly my first reaction. I guess I'm in line with you here. It didn't spark a firestorm. During the week, the coach apologized to the other coach, the injured player and his family, and nobody was even remotely upset. They accepted the apology and moved on.

There was community debate sparked because the reporter called attention to it. In some regards, he did his job. Others have made this point. Page clicks and social media shares are great, I suppose. But I'm not always sure that's what we should be worried about.

I don't know the answer, not claiming to.