Quote:
Originally Posted by Juulie Downs
The story is so clearly biased that there's no way to know if it even gets it's part of the story correct. I can't even imagine calling it reporting. It's an opinion page piece if ever there was one.
|
Respectfully disagree here, Juuuulie. Once you get past the "sick to the stomach" "with good reason" lead (a doozy), I thought the reporter did a pretty good job of recounting what happened -- with the exception of letting us know when/how/if the ball was touched on the inbounding play. That and possibly the "reasonable" arguments phrase (how does he know if the coach has reasonable arguments unless he goes to some authority or is an authority to speak out?).
When I skimmed by the lead paragraph (which I did somehow the first time), I didn't know which of the teams might have been in his paper's main circulation area (or if both are). The reporter is complimentary to both sides' players. And he also sought comment from both coaches, etc.
When I first read it, I thought the losing team might have actually inbounded the ball and THEN made a long throw across the division line (still a possibility because of the info gap).
And, sorry, but if this is such a high-profile game to report about, the officials' names are fair game. To truly neutral observers, it tells them veterans were on the call and likely got it right. You leave out "veterans" and it casts a different light.
Like others, my main quibble is the reporter apparently didn't try to find out from an official (either working the game or in his Rolodex) what the official reasoning was. But then again, he might not have had the time. A follow-up article, even small, would be appropriate to clear it up in readers (and participants') minds. It happens all the time in many news outlets. So far, it appears there's been none.