SleepyWhiteSox Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 You're so screwed...I'm googling your name right now...Yep, there's the home address... Kidding. Awesome job. It's a many a sports fan's dream job, no matter where you start... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 This is not a piece of criticism on your writing Alex, rather just an observation on the entire way games are reported nowadays. Back in the day, you read a sports piece like a book, in chronological order. But now they practice "pyramid" type journalism. Read the headline, and you know the outcome of the game. Read the first paragraph, and you've gotten the most pivotal moment in the game. Want more details, you have to read further. If you haven't actually seen the game, there's no real sense of the tension or the build up of the Game. Most good games are see-saw affairs that build to an ultimate cresendo. Yet when they are reported they go Crescendo, see, then saw, with some key statistics thrown in for good measure. Anyway, that's just a pet peeve of mine. I know I'm not the only one who still wishes games were written about in the old fashoined way. You will be able to find some old fashoined game reports for the white sox 2005 season in the months to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Newspaper journalism has changed because people's reading habits have. More later when I'm not at work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Good writing, just one small thing I noticed: Angela Smith's three-pointer with 0.9 second remaining forced the extra period for the winners. The winners just sounds really, really awkward. But if Bellarmine's name was actually called the winners, that'd be pretty sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 That's the graph I nitpick with. Something about the 0.9 seconds is a little jarring to me visually. Using Bellarmine rather than winners and "less than a second" would be good for both situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 I sent ya a PM about this, Aboz, hopefully that was ok, but that was my penny of a thought too, was the winners should be the name (or nickname) of the team. But overall, it was great, and I think the quotes were written into the column very well too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 28, 2005 -> 12:37 PM) Good writing, just one small thing I noticed: The winners just sounds really, really awkward. But if Bellarmine's name was actually called the winners, that'd be pretty sweet. That's actually how the C-J likes it, so that's why I did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 I accept that. Flawless then on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 aboz, i was reading todays paper and thought that someone else that writes for the journal is your relative as you share the same last name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Ah ha... nevermind then. It's all good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.