your inviolable rules of writing

[Mystery Meat II]

Most of these so-called "rules" aren't actually rules. Or they shouldn't be. The obvious ones are, of course -- spell-check everything, fact-check everything, write to fit (when applicable) and forking file on time.

But no holiday ledes? No pun ledes? No rhetorical questions? Maybe if you're trying to write to impress the SJ posters, but Joe and Jessica Content Reader don't especially care about that shirt. If you write the same lede 20 times, that's a problem, but it speaks to general laziness. Believe it or not, I don't think our readers are going to rise up with fists if we break out a "Christmas came early" or, horror of horrors, "It was a tale of two halves".

Get it clear.
Get it right.
Get it out.

Those are the only three rules that really matter when push comes to shove.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Gamers that have a quote from only one side of the outcome.

Seriously?

If we're talking about a situation in which both teams are within the readership of the paper, then yes. But really then we're mostly just talking about preps, er, high schools. (I agree on that one. No one says preps.)

But if I'm covering the Cubs for the Chicago Tribune, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get any comment from the Padres clubhouse unless there is some special circumstance in the game (a controversy).

I cover the Cubs.

I'm not even covering the Cubs-Padres game. I'm covering the Cubs. My readers care about what's going on with the Cubs.

 

[SoCalDude]

Gamers that have a quote from only one side of the outcome.

Seriously?

If we're talking about a situation in which both teams are within the readership of the paper, then yes. But really then we're mostly just talking about preps, er, high schools. (I agree on that one. No one says preps.)

But if I'm covering the Cubs for the Chicago Tribune, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get any comment from the Padres clubhouse unless there is some special circumstance in the game (a controversy).

I cover the Cubs.

I'm not even covering the Cubs-Padres game. I'm covering the Cubs. My readers care about what's going on with the Cubs.

Disagree with bbbobcat ... and this is an issue, in my opinion, where I work.
There are 2 teams on the field. Both had an affect on the outcome. Too often the opponent of the team we cover is overlooked.

 

[boundforboston]

Gamers that have a quote from only one side of the outcome.

Seriously?

If we're talking about a situation in which both teams are within the readership of the paper, then yes. But really then we're mostly just talking about preps, er, high schools. (I agree on that one. No one says preps.)

But if I'm covering the Cubs for the Chicago Tribune, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get any comment from the Padres clubhouse unless there is some special circumstance in the game (a controversy).

I cover the Cubs.

I'm not even covering the Cubs-Padres game. I'm covering the Cubs. My readers care about what's going on with the Cubs.

A comment from the Padres, however, could be particularly enlightening. You could ask about pitches thrown, how a Cubs player looked, etc. (Most beat guys trade quotes with someone they know who covers the other team anyway.)

 

[Walter Burns]

Saying anything other than "dies."
In a paid death notice, it's your money, say what you want: "expires," "passes away," "goes to sleep in Christ," "went to be with the Lord," "became God's newest angel," whatever.
But in news copy, people die. That's all there is to it — and there is no faster way to earn my undying (or un-passing away) enmity than to say otherwise.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

Make sure the score in the game story and the boxscore/agate match.

Make sure the score by quarters adds up to the correct final score.

 

[greggdoyel]

Choose words carefully.

For example, have you noticed how many sportswriters (and others) confuse "trend" and "pattern"? The CBS column (link below) says only one out of three HOF voters on staff would vote for Barry Bonds. The writer calls this ratio "an ominous trend." It may be ominous, for Bonds, but it's no forking trend. To be a trend, it has to be changing, moving, over time, from this to that. What you have there is an ominous pattern, a still picture, not a moving one.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/19767792/bonds-a-hall-of-famer-before-peds-which-is-why-he-belongs-in-cooperstown

I saw this and thought, "Really? My website getting called out?" Then I looked at the headline, and "really" became "oh sh-t."

And here I'd been thinking: What a great thread! Hmph.

 

[BB Bobcat]

Gamers that have a quote from only one side of the outcome.

Seriously?

If we're talking about a situation in which both teams are within the readership of the paper, then yes. But really then we're mostly just talking about preps, er, high schools. (I agree on that one. No one says preps.)

But if I'm covering the Cubs for the Chicago Tribune, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get any comment from the Padres clubhouse unless there is some special circumstance in the game (a controversy).

I cover the Cubs.

I'm not even covering the Cubs-Padres game. I'm covering the Cubs. My readers care about what's going on with the Cubs.

A comment from the Padres, however, could be particularly enlightening. You could ask about pitches thrown, how a Cubs player looked, etc. (Most beat guys trade quotes with someone they know who covers the other team anyway.)

Obviously there are times that a quote from the other side is insightful. I just don't think it is by any means an "inviolable rule" that there must be a quote from both sides, which is how it was portrayed in the post I quoted.

 

[Versatile]

If you're the lone reporter from your publication, you can only get to one locker room. How much is that canned news conference quote from the other team really going to help your story?

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Spell my name correctly on the check.

 

[nate41]

Gamers that have a quote from only one side of the outcome.

Seriously?

If we're talking about a situation in which both teams are within the readership of the paper, then yes. But really then we're mostly just talking about preps, er, high schools. (I agree on that one. No one says preps.)

But if I'm covering the Cubs for the Chicago Tribune, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get any comment from the Padres clubhouse unless there is some special circumstance in the game (a controversy).

I cover the Cubs.

I'm not even covering the Cubs-Padres game. I'm covering the Cubs. My readers care about what's going on with the Cubs.

I try to get both sides if I can, but when the clock is ticking, sometimes you just gotta run with what you got and go with it.

 

[MightyMouse]

If it's Tuesday, the most important thing for you to work on is what's going in Wednesday's paper. Not Thursday's column; not Friday's preview; not next week's feature. Everything else you're working on takes a back seat until Wednesday's stuff is done.