Reporter gets coach suspended for inappropriate comment....

[JRoyal]

When I say it's news, I'm not saying it's about page clicks and shares. It's insulting that you think that's what any of us who called it news are implying that. I could give a damn about page clicks. This is about the newsworthiness of the event, and if you can't see this was newsworthy, you're blinded by a small-town view of the role of the newspaper in your community. Maybe that's fine for what your paper does. But it's a biased, rose-colored version of journalism that leans a lot more toward public relations.

Look at it this way: A man who has a strong influence on young men in the community made a racially charged statement that his players could hear (I assume since the reporter heard it, the players did too). Maybe there was some truth to the statement. Maybe not. But he made it, it caused a penalty on him, caused him to be ejected and suspended. Even if that wasn't the statement that led to the penalty, he still lost his cool and made a racially charged statement in front of his players. That deserves to be reported. News isn't always about what we're comfortable writing. This wasn't something he said in his office to a couple of coaches. He yelled it on the field in front of his players, the officials and anyone else who was on the field and could hear.

And I just checked the writer's Twitter feed. You made it sound like he sent 20 tweets on this. He sent one the day of the game, one for his story (common practice), one with the news of the suspension, one with a story about the suspension as more of a shoutout to the other writer who did that story, one with his story on the suspension, and one with a follow-up on the injury and suspension. Six tweets over the course of six days. That isn't egregious at all, esp. when you see how much this guy tweets (too many retweets for my tastes), but if you think six tweets in six days is overdoing it, you probably don't use social media much.

 

[Ace]

IMHO, preps writers tend to protect coaches too often. If the coach said this on the field it's a particularly stupid thing to say. So perhaps the reporter helped teach the coach a valuable lesson.

 

[mediaguy]

Why are we so hesitant to link to the story? Silly to criticize the story without presenting it for others to read:

Dangerous injury, coach's racial comment inflict black eye on Burlington football victory

A few things: It's absolutely fair game to write about. Story plainly states his comment was heard by others. If reporter was where he normally is allowed to be during the game, it's completely fair game and entirely appropriate to write about. What made the game stand out was not that Team A won, but that a coach got ejected for insinuating the official was racist in assessing a penalty. He's fortunate to only be suspended a game, but we've seen players target and blindside an official during a game this week, so I suppose this is mild in comparison.

We can critique the writing or the choice to go first person halfway through a game story. Still very valid to write about what happened.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The reporter here did a nice job in the fact that he found an angle that at least gave his story some meat rather than a boring gamer as you seem to suggest he should have written. Sure, he could have asked the coach if he wanted to clarify his remark, but that's not his job and it's really not his place to give him that opportunity. His job is to report the things he sees and hears with accuracy. So long as he got the situation right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with writing it. If the coach said it, then why in the heck would he deserve a chance to recant it? He doesn't.

I've had a situation like this myself, not this egregious, but still similar enough that I ran with it. The coach I quoted didn't like that I put his profanity-laced tirade on some officials at the end of a game from a questionable call . But it was pure gold. It portrayed the heat and passion of the moment and that took precedence over anything else. That was part of the story.

The same is true here for this reporter. He recognized the importance of the moment and gave readers a clue as to how deep the racial divisions run between these two schools. That the coach said this only verifies what everyone else was already thinking and is pretty much perfect for story telling in this instance.

It sounds like you have some sort of issue because this reporter did a very good job and got a little recognition or attention for his work. Rather than trying to discredit him, take a look at what he did that was right and why the story had legs and ran. The reporter isn't the story, never was and never will be as you seem to insinuate. Maybe it has stroked his ego and he's proud of that. Big deal.

As for your asking my opinion, I'd say the reporter got readers thinking, got people talking, got people to read his story. He provoked thought and he even provoked an apology and change. That's pretty damn good reporting where I come from.

 

[Riptide]

Demons are playing complete football, in all three phases, said
coach Steve Tenhagen, and it's the squad's first 2-0 start since 2013.

Reporter must have worked hard to dig that up.

 

[TGO157]

The reporter here did a nice job in the fact that he found an angle that at least gave his story some meat rather than a boring gamer as you seem to suggest he should have written. Sure, he could have asked the coach if he wanted to clarify his remark, but that's not his job and it's really not his place to give him that opportunity. His job is to report the things he sees and hears with accuracy. So long as he got the situation right, there's absolutely nothing wrong with writing it. If the coach said it, then why in the heck would he deserve a chance to recant it? He doesn't.

I've had a situation like this myself, not this egregious, but still similar enough that I ran with it. The coach I quoted didn't like that I put his profanity-laced tirade on some officials at the end of a game from a questionable call . But it was pure gold. It portrayed the heat and passion of the moment and that took precedence over anything else. That was part of the story.

The same is true here for this reporter. He recognized the importance of the moment and gave readers a clue as to how deep the racial divisions run between these two schools. That the coach said this only verifies what everyone else was already thinking and is pretty much perfect for story telling in this instance.

It sounds like you have some sort of issue because this reporter did a very good job and got a little recognition or attention for his work. Rather than trying to discredit him, take a look at what he did that was right and why the story had legs and ran. The reporter isn't the story, never was and never will be as you seem to insinuate. Maybe it has stroked his ego and he's proud of that. Big deal.

As for your asking my opinion, I'd say the reporter got readers thinking, got people talking, got people to read his story. He provoked thought and he even provoked an apology and change. That's pretty damn good reporting where I come from.

Eh, the second half of the article where he editorializes and says the players are "going to war each Friday" was pretty craptacular. He wrote a game story and a column all in one article. Maybe it showed up in print a different way and he just combined the online post into one article.

Also, unless I missed it, the article didn't "give readers a clue" that this is a racially divided town. I got it from the original poster, but I never saw it established in the article that this is a racially divided town and two schools with contrastic demographic populations.

 

[Lugnuts]

To paraphrase Randy Cross (oft quoted by Johnny Dangerously)...

That's a great example of some pretty good reporting.

This guy has news judgment, and I'll take that every single time over artful writing.

I hope he sees this thread and keeps up the good work. Get after it, yo !

 

[Doc Holliday]

Eh, the second half of the article where he editorializes and says the players are "going to war each Friday" was pretty craptacular. He wrote a game story and a column all in one article. Maybe it showed up in print a different way and he just combined the online post into one article.

Also, unless I missed it, the article didn't "give readers a clue" that this is a racially divided town. I got it from the original poster, but I never saw it established in the article that this is a racially divided town and two schools with contrastic demographic populations.

Well that was my interpretation from what had been discussed here. I haven't read the article as there was no link. However, you sure seem to have an issue with this fellow. Jealous?

 

[TGO157]

Well that was my interpretation from what had been discussed here. I haven't read the article as there was no link. However, you sure seem to have an issue with this fellow. Jealous?

The link to the article is right above your first post. I held judgment until I read it. It was fine reporting. But the part about giving readers a clue to the racial divisions of this town is ... untrue. I, like others, don't think it should've swerved mid-story from an objective news article to an opinion piece. But yes, it was solid, bold reporting.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The link to the article is right above your first post. I held judgment until I read it. It was fine reporting. But the part about giving readers a clue to the racial divisions of this town is ... untrue. I, like others, don't think it should've swerved mid-story from an objective news article to an opinion piece. But yes, it was solid, bold reporting.

Ahhhh, well maybe I shoulda clicked on that link and read the story!

 

[jr/shotglass]

From story: "Before we go villainizing this man ..."

All-righty, then.

 

[Doc Holliday]

From story: "Before we go villainizing this man ..."

All-righty, then.

Wow. Now that's some serious editorializing!