Do you sincerely believe that an article written about teams running up the score, with no knowledge of the players involved, readers would be able to come up with the conclusion that JV/frosh were in at the time? I don't.

 

 

Yes. I believe that the majority of sports fans (maybe not all) would understand that a score that resulted in a 56 point lead (and eventually a 62 point lead) would have been scored by someone other than the varsity.

There's a whole lot of variables that come into play when determining what makes it into a story and what gets left out. Space is a prime concern, but the quality of the game in comparison to other games that went on that night is also a consideration. In a 50-some point blowout, there's just not that much interesting to write about, and extra scores well after the game has been decided falls to a very low spot on the priority scale of what goes in and what doesn't make the story.

 

Considerations of "fairness" and who's going to be seen as the bad guy in a situation where it appears the score has been run up are just not of prime concern to the journalist assigned to cover the game. Getting Little Johnny's name in there is also not of prime concern, especially if it's the score that's the difference between 56-0 and 63-0.

As I understand it, LN was not talking about a box score or report about a game. He was talking about a reporter doing a critical piece about running up the score. In that situation, if he's going to mention the late score, he should mention who was in the game. Otherwise, he's slanting the article.

If you're not playing to score then what's the point of playing? 30 secs or 30 minutes.....play on. Or get off the field.

 

99.9% of all coaches would disagree with that statement.

99.9% of all coaches would disagree with that statement.

 

That's cool. I'm not a coach of football. If I coached anything it'd be basketball and if I put in my JV or Freshman players and we're up 30 I'd expect them to run the offense and if that involves someone hitting a wide open three or nothing but threes to end the game then so be it. And yes, I'm a big boy and I could handle it if the roles were reversed. I wouldn't press full court up that much but we'd still play hard on defense. That's just the way I am. Don't like it then find a way to stop it.

As I understand it, LN was not talking about a box score or report about a game. He was talking about a reporter doing a critical piece about running up the score. In that situation, if he's going to mention the late score, he should mention who was in the game. Otherwise, he's slanting the article.

 

I agree, if that is the case. It never quite seemed clear to me if we were talking about a straight game story or what. My comments apply to when we're talking about a straight-up game story.

 

If a writer is going to take that next step and weigh in on the topic of running up the score, calling out a particular coach/school in the process, then that writer needs to have all his bases covered in terms of details about the game in question, and more ammo on top of that (past history or running it up, bad blood between schools, etc.) to support his argument.

Yes. I believe that the majority of sports fans (maybe not all) would understand that a score that resulted in a 56 point lead (and eventually a 62 point lead) would have been scored by someone other than the varsity.

 

Not all sports fans believe that a 56 point margin is running the score up either.

Clyde had asked earlier what the impetus was for this thread. Actually it had nothing to do with running up the score.

 

Yesterday, coming back to the office I was listening to NPR. I generally enjoy NPR. Don't necessarily agree with what I hear. But that's part of the reason I listen to NPR. Anyway, they were talking about President Obama's Executive Order dealing with illegal immigrants. Their DC correspondent mentioned several times that Romney stated months ago that he would veto the DREAM Act if he became President and it was passed by Congress. Which is factually correct, much like reporting CovCath scored in the last 30 seconds would be factually correct. Romney did state such. But the DC correspondent did not once mention that Romney said there was a lot of the proposed DREAM bill that he agreed with, but because there were some things he disagreed with he'd veto it if it was passed as currently proposed. I thought it was rather unfair reporting/commenting by the DC correspondent. No problem with saying Romney said he would veto the bill, but he should have added that Romney was supportive of much contained in the bill.

 

I wondered if I was being unfair in my assessment that the correspondent was being unfair. I was curious to know how others on here felt. If I had asked the question in the P&R forum if posters felt the correspondent was being unfair, it would quickly devolve in to partisanship. So I decided to mask the issue somewhat and ask it in the General forum with a football bent.

 

Sadly I expect politicians to distort their or their opponents' voting record ("Senator Smith voted against this bill", while technically correct but not explaining that the bill had all kinds of amendments hanging on it making it almost impossible for someone to vote for even if they agreed with the crux of the bill). I just don't expect NPR to give a technical fact without giving all the details (particularly on such an important issue). I will note that after the correspondent dropped off, some guy who I think was the Executive Director of some latino group holding a conference in Florida today, was asked how he felt about Romney's statement that he'd veto the DREAM Act if it landed on his desk. The guy responded with the realistic answer: we realize that politicians say things during a primary. We don't care what they say during the primary. We are more concerned what Romney will say now (Romney was to appear today at the conference as was President Obama).

 

I came away generally disappointed with the level of reporting/commentary by the NPR folks. What they said was not wrong, but it left out a lot of Romney's position on illegal immigrants being able to earn citizenship. Stuff that might have appealled to those in favor of such happening. Someone listening but not familiar with Romney's stance could easily come to the conclusion that Romney was totally against illegals being able to earn citizenship which would be a false conclusion. Thought maybe my support of Romney was clouding my judgment. Wanted to get thoughts on the situation without politics driving those thoughts. Hope no one is upset that I wasn't totally forthright as I solicited thoughts and opinions. If so, I apologize.

Whether it is or isn't, it still should be reported, don't you think?

 

I do think it should be reported, yes.

Hugely unfair, particularly now that I know the real reason for the question. The reporter has misrepresented Romney's position. I'll be very interested to see/hear details about which parts of the Dream Act that he disagrees with and what he would propose instead.

Clyde had asked earlier what the impetus was for this thread. Actually it had nothing to do with running up the score.

 

Yesterday, coming back to the office I was listening to NPR. I generally enjoy NPR. Don't necessarily agree with what I hear. But that's part of the reason I listen to NPR. Anyway, they were talking about President Obama's Executive Order dealing with illegal immigrants. Their DC correspondent mentioned several times that Romney stated months ago that he would veto the DREAM Act if he became President and it was passed by Congress. Which is factually correct, much like reporting CovCath scored in the last 30 seconds would be factually correct. Romney did state such. But the DC correspondent did not once mention that Romney said there was a lot of the proposed DREAM bill that he agreed with, but because there were some things he disagreed with he'd veto it if it was passed as currently proposed. I thought it was rather unfair reporting/commenting by the DC correspondent. No problem with saying Romney said he would veto the bill, but he should have added that Romney was supportive of much contained in the bill.

 

I wondered if I was being unfair in my assessment that the correspondent was being unfair. I was curious to know how others on here felt. If I had asked the question in the P&R forum if posters felt the correspondent was being unfair, it would quickly devolve in to partisanship. So I decided to mask the issue somewhat and ask it in the General forum with a football bent.

 

Sadly I expect politicians to distort their or their opponents' voting record ("Senator Smith voted against this bill", while technically correct but not explaining that the bill had all kinds of amendments hanging on it making it almost impossible for someone to vote for even if they agreed with the crux of the bill). I just don't expect NPR to give a technical fact without giving all the details (particularly on such an important issue). I will note that after the correspondent dropped off, some guy who I think was the Executive Director of some latino group holding a conference in Florida today, was asked how he felt about Romney's statement that he'd veto the DREAM Act if it landed on his desk. The guy responded with the realistic answer: we realize that politicians say things during a primary. We don't care what they say during the primary. We are more concerned what Romney will say now (Romney was to appear today at the conference as was President Obama).

 

I came away generally disappointed with the level of reporting/commentary by the NPR folks. What they said was not wrong, but it left out a lot of Romney's position on illegal immigrants being able to earn citizenship. Stuff that might have appealled to those in favor of such happening. Someone listening but not familiar with Romney's stance could easily come to the conclusion that Romney was totally against illegals being able to earn citizenship which would be a false conclusion. Thought maybe my support of Romney was clouding my judgment. Wanted to get thoughts on the situation without politics driving those thoughts. Hope no one is upset that I wasn't totally forthright as I solicited thoughts and opinions. If so, I apologize.

 

Genius. Genius is what you did. Nicely done. It probably would have devolved into partisanship and the initial thought of the thread would have gotten lost.

 

So am I a football Republican or Democrat?

In that case, I hope Romney has such a huge lead he can take a knee.

Clyde had asked earlier what the impetus was for this thread. Actually it had nothing to do with running up the score.

 

Yesterday, coming back to the office I was listening to NPR. I generally enjoy NPR. Don't necessarily agree with what I hear. But that's part of the reason I listen to NPR. Anyway, they were talking about President Obama's Executive Order dealing with illegal immigrants. Their DC correspondent mentioned several times that Romney stated months ago that he would veto the DREAM Act if he became President and it was passed by Congress. Which is factually correct, much like reporting CovCath scored in the last 30 seconds would be factually correct. Romney did state such. But the DC correspondent did not once mention that Romney said there was a lot of the proposed DREAM bill that he agreed with, but because there were some things he disagreed with he'd veto it if it was passed as currently proposed. I thought it was rather unfair reporting/commenting by the DC correspondent. No problem with saying Romney said he would veto the bill, but he should have added that Romney was supportive of much contained in the bill.

 

I wondered if I was being unfair in my assessment that the correspondent was being unfair. I was curious to know how others on here felt. If I had asked the question in the P&R forum if posters felt the correspondent was being unfair, it would quickly devolve in to partisanship. So I decided to mask the issue somewhat and ask it in the General forum with a football bent.

 

Sadly I expect politicians to distort their or their opponents' voting record ("Senator Smith voted against this bill", while technically correct but not explaining that the bill had all kinds of amendments hanging on it making it almost impossible for someone to vote for even if they agreed with the crux of the bill). I just don't expect NPR to give a technical fact without giving all the details (particularly on such an important issue). I will note that after the correspondent dropped off, some guy who I think was the Executive Director of some latino group holding a conference in Florida today, was asked how he felt about Romney's statement that he'd veto the DREAM Act if it landed on his desk. The guy responded with the realistic answer: we realize that politicians say things during a primary. We don't care what they say during the primary. We are more concerned what Romney will say now (Romney was to appear today at the conference as was President Obama).

 

I came away generally disappointed with the level of reporting/commentary by the NPR folks. What they said was not wrong, but it left out a lot of Romney's position on illegal immigrants being able to earn citizenship. Stuff that might have appealled to those in favor of such happening. Someone listening but not familiar with Romney's stance could easily come to the conclusion that Romney was totally against illegals being able to earn citizenship which would be a false conclusion. Thought maybe my support of Romney was clouding my judgment. Wanted to get thoughts on the situation without politics driving those thoughts. Hope no one is upset that I wasn't totally forthright as I solicited thoughts and opinions. If so, I apologize.

 

NPR is a place people should be able to go to for context and depth beyond what you normally get from the sound-bite driven mainstream broadcast media. Listeners go to NPR for that little something extra you don't get in broadcast and print/online media outlets. It's disappointing to see them take a pass on this. I hope it was more for concerns of space/time constraints rather than a deliberate, strategic omission.

Genius. Genius is what you did. Nicely done. It probably would have devolved into partisanship and the initial thought of the thread would have gotten lost.

 

So am I a football Republican or Democrat?

 

I agree...very nicely done!

I would have expected that from NBC, not NPR.