charmed by Chizik
- Thread starter WoadBlue
- Start date
The Durham Herald-Sun has been pretty fair throughout the Great Unpleasantness, but I've noticed lately that they've started putting the 'scandal stuff' higher and higher in their stories lately.....
They don't overexaggerate like certain rags, but there's no reason all that NCAA rehash should be in that article at all, much less in the first, second, third, and fourth graf.
They don't overexaggerate like certain rags, but there's no reason all that NCAA rehash should be in that article at all, much less in the first, second, third, and fourth graf.
^^^^ The former UNC beat writer at the Herald-Sun was Harold Gutmann. He took a new job back in the spring so there you go. And yes, I agree he was very fair with his coverage and didn't allude to it unless called for.
A good (and fair) editor wouldn't let that article go to print the way it's written, with respect to the mention of the scandal being far too high. Buttttt we all know that 'fair' and 'journalist' are far from synonymous these days.
ETA: **warning: journalist rant incoming** Just because you CAN print something, doesn't mean you NEED to print it or even that you SHOULD print it. Readers aren't stupid...especially 21st century newspaper readers. If they are reading your article in a local paper, then they already know the in's and out's of what you're writing about. They're fully aware of the UNC scandal, so there's literally no need to mention it in a dang pre-season preview piece on the new defensive staff and the season outlook. Not only is it unnecessary and bad journalistic form, it's just pointless to boot. If the writer and editor felt absolutely compelled to mention the Great Unpleasantness, they could have done so in ONE sentence in print, and on the digital version, simply including a link in parentheses to their other articles specifically talking about the scandal.
Putting the scandal so high in this article accomplishes nothing. It would be like me writing a review about McDonald's new artisan chicken sandwich and starting it off with the sentence "The fast food giant McDonald's, who was sued for serving a women scalding hot coffee in the 1990's, has rolled out a new artisan chicken sandwich and it is delicious...."
Some people's ignorance truly amazes me. But like I said, just because you can print something, doesn't mean you should. As a personal anecdote, when I covered UNC athletics for the Daily Tar Heel (speaking of papers that suck now...), a particular UNC head coach of a very successful Tar Heel sport said something to just me and another DTH reporter in the heat of a post-loss press conference that we absolutely COULD have printed. But my partner and I talked it over and we decided that printing and attributing that particular quote to him/her would've cast him/her in a very bad light and frankly, would've been cruel on our part because she obviously blurted this particular quote out in a fit of frustration and anger. I COULD have been a d-bag "Gotcha! Journalist" and printed what he/she said, but I didn't because the quote in question wasn't a fair reflection of the coach, the program, or the school. And this was just regular ol' me, an unpaid amateur journalist....yet I used better discretion that day than paid journalists do on a regular basis these days. SMH.
**rant over**
Last edited:
I was going to point out the fact that local papers are often read by national readers, but you addressed that with the comment about adding links to backstories. I like the McDonald's analogy.
Similar threads
