New York Times Story

[jack power]

Re: New York Times Story

Oh, I think the public does know about the SDSU women's basketball team. I believe the public is still trying to work through the idea that women's basketball is something worth investigating. There are a lot of people who think like lakesbison and can't come to terms with the fact that the women are good and provide great entertainment.

One paragraph in the NY Times story that really caught my eye:

“Our team just hates to disappoint people,” Cornemann said. “We absolutely just feel awful. We lost twice this year. After we lost, we just felt like we let down our whole Brookings community, because they have faith in is, and we didn’t play to our potential.”

For me, this is a separation point between men's basketball (as a whole, not just SDSU) and women's basketball. The women feel sorry for the fans when they lose; men feel sorry for themselves.

B.S. How in the hell do you know WHAT the men are feeling.

[Nidaros]

Re: New York Times Story

I thought this was a very good story and the guy gave us as much credit as he could. I guess I am kind of sexist, but our Women seem to be very predictible in terms of GPA's and Wins, so they are really do not surprise me much anymore.

Right now, I am not as interested in the women BB as I am in the men. The reason is that the men's BB program is still a work in progress. I think the men's win in Ames Iowa, was about the biggest surprise since going D1. Does it overshadow the women's big win? No I dont think so. At the same token, I dont think our guys feel sorry for themselves. Its where the talent was at the start of the transition period is what we are dealing with. The women came off a national champ with returning veterans while in the men's program the cupboard was bare.

We can only hope that the success continues and even if coaches leave, the program is at a level that will give the next coach the resources to continue. I believe some of the success reputations in D1 for both men and women golf are schools that are not otherwise that visible. Oklahoma State comes to mind and correct me if I am wrong, but they have a great reputation for golf success. Perhaps this will be true also for SDSU women's basketball.

[EQguy]

Re: New York Times Story

Great Article. Love the press these ladies are driving to SDSU

[JimmyJack]

Re: New York Times Story

From a journalism professor's perspective, it's a very poor story demonstrating a real lack of effort on the part of the reporter. My first impression was: Wow. That took a WEEK? Then I thought some more and I thought: Wow, that's the best the NEW YORK TIMES could do with this story? There are three interviews there. Three. If one of my students turned that in, they'd get a "C", mainly for failing to make the extra effort. Typically, young journalists do only what's expected, gathering just enough information to put together a very conventional story. Good journalists have a hard time fitting all their information into a story because they've turned over too many rocks trying to do something more than the minimum. This reporter just plugged information into a preconceived story "template". Not impressive.

I'd say the reporter should have:
1. Talked to more players
2. Talked to a fan or two (how about a student?) to find out what this means to the community.
3. Talked to more opposing coaches (Oregon's coach had some really good things to say in her post-game press conference)
4. Talked to a national WBB analyst to get further context

The absence of #4 in particular is really a show-stopping failure.

That said, I'm happy with the publicity for the university and the team. But it's still some pretty weak journalism. It could have been such a rich and interesting story. Obviously the Times editors weren't too impressed. It's not featured on the Times Web site.

[SturgisJeff]

Re: New York Times Story

Should of let Terry V write the story he'd had that and a lot more

[boxerboy]

Re: New York Times Story

Oh, I think the public does know about the SDSU women's basketball team. I believe the public is still trying to work through the idea that women's basketball is something worth investigating. There are a lot of people who think like lakesbison and can't come to terms with the fact that the women are good and provide great entertainment.

One paragraph in the NY Times story that really caught my eye:

“Our team just hates to disappoint people,” Cornemann said. “We absolutely just feel awful. We lost twice this year. After we lost, we just felt like we let down our whole Brookings community, because they have faith in is, and we didn’t play to our potential.”

For me, this is a separation point between men's basketball (as a whole, not just SDSU) and women's basketball. The women feel sorry for the fans when they lose; men feel sorry for themselves.

Sorry Cowbell, as much as I would like to agree I can't. Depending on what you call the "public" makes your point hard to agree with. Now if your only talking South Dakota people I would agree. However half of the country doesn't even know where South Dakota is and they constantly mix SD and ND up. Now there are a few die hard womens BB fans across the country that will have become familiar with SDSU basketball.
If a person lives out of state but grew up in South Dakota or attended SDSU they are probably aware of the JAckrabbit success. Most people only care about their local mens programs unless they have a really good womens program too. It's just the way it is. If I asked one thousand people here in Michigan randomly about SDSU womens basketball maybe one would have heard of their success. Most of that is still due to lack of interest in womens basketball. The rest is due to not caring period about anything in South Dakota.

[Jacks-02]

Re: New York Times Story

From a journalism professor's perspective, it's a very poor story demonstrating a real lack of effort on the part of the reporter. My first impression was: Wow. That took a WEEK? Then I thought some more and I thought: Wow, that's the best the NEW YORK TIMES could do with this story? There are three interviews there. Three. If one of my students turned that in, they'd get a "C", mainly for failing to make the extra effort. Typically, young journalists do only what's expected, gathering just enough information to put together a very conventional story. Good journalists have a hard time fitting all their information into a story because they've turned over too many rocks trying to do something more than the minimum. This reporter just plugged information into a preconceived story "template". Not impressive.

I'd say the reporter should have:
1. Talked to more players
2. Talked to a fan or two (how about a student?) to find out what this means to the community.
3. Talked to more opposing coaches (Oregon's coach had some really good things to say in her post-game press conference)
4. Talked to a national WBB analyst to get further context

The absence of #4 in particular is really a show-stopping failure.

That said, I'm happy with the publicity for the university and the team. But it's still some pretty weak journalism. It could have been such a rich and interesting story. Obviously the Times editors weren't too impressed. It's not featured on the Times Web site.

One notable thing was missing in the story. They talked about how a couple players were valedictorians or salutatorians of their high school classes, but then failed to mention that the team has the highest GPA in the nation for 3 years running. I figured that would have been one of the things the writer would have focused on.

[leeshajo]

Re: New York Times Story

From a journalism professor's perspective, it's a very poor story demonstrating a real lack of effort on the part of the reporter. My first impression was: Wow. That took a WEEK? Then I thought some more and I thought: Wow, that's the best the NEW YORK TIMES could do with this story? There are three interviews there. Three. If one of my students turned that in, they'd get a "C", mainly for failing to make the extra effort. Typically, young journalists do only what's expected, gathering just enough information to put together a very conventional story. Good journalists have a hard time fitting all their information into a story because they've turned over too many rocks trying to do something more than the minimum. This reporter just plugged information into a preconceived story "template". Not impressive.

I'd say the reporter should have:
1. Talked to more players
2. Talked to a fan or two (how about a student?) to find out what this means to the community.
3. Talked to more opposing coaches (Oregon's coach had some really good things to say in her post-game press conference)
4. Talked to a national WBB analyst to get further context

The absence of #4 in particular is really a show-stopping failure.

That said, I'm happy with the publicity for the university and the team. But it's still some pretty weak journalism. It could have been such a rich and interesting story. Obviously the Times editors weren't too impressed. It's not featured on the Times Web site.

Make it an assignment in one of your classes to write the story how it should have been done... Then have them submit them to the Times to show them that not only does SD State have a good athletics program they have a great journalism department too

[yotemeal]

Re: New York Times Story

Is anyone on this forum pretentious enough to receive the print edition of the NYTimes? I’d be curious to see what sort of play this story received in terms of placement. I would have to agree with JimmyJack on the overall quality of the piece. It’s just sort of passable. This had great potential to be a much more in-depth sports feature. But then again, this is the New York Times, and South Dakota remains fly-over country. I’m just glad I didn’t encounter language such as “in the tiny and remote village of Brookings” or “on the wild prairie frontier.” Yeah, we get it; this isn’t Midtown Manhattan. Thank god they sent a stringer.

Congrats on the article, SDSU. Maybe down the road we’ll be reading about South Dakota’s two thriving Division I powers.

[KUlawJack]

Re: New York Times Story

Is anyone on this forum pretentious enough to receive the print edition of the NYTimes? I’d be curious to see what sort of play this story received in terms of placement. I would have to agree with JimmyJack on the overall quality of the piece. It’s just sort of passable. This had great potential to be a much more in-depth sports feature. But then again, this is the New York Times, and South Dakota remains fly-over country. I’m just glad I didn’t encounter language such as “in the tiny and remote village of Brookings” or “on the wild prairie frontier.” Yeah, we get it; this isn’t Midtown Manhattan. Thank god they sent a stringer.

Congrats on the article, SDSU. Maybe down the road we’ll be reading about South Dakota’s two thriving Division I powers.

About placement, I will check after I get out of class. The Times is delivered to my school in bulk so I can check it out and report.

[KUlawJack]

Re: New York Times Story

No story in the hard copy of the paper today, at least in the version of the paper I have. The sports section was extremely short today. I will keep an eye out if no one else comes up with the article placement in the paper.

[zooropa]

Re: New York Times Story

the article had a publish date of Jan 29... Was it in yesterday's paper?

[johnnyjackrabbit]

Re: New York Times Story

Typically, young journalists do only what's expected, gathering just enough information to put together a very conventional story.

After reading this, I wanted to know more about Pat Borzi. I found this bio at http://www.minnpost.com/patborzi/

"Pat Borzi, a freelance writer and frequent contributor to the New York Times, will write about sports for MinnPost.com. Before moving to the Twin Cities in 2002, Borzi covered Major League Baseball and the Olympics for the Newark Star-Ledger. He previously worked at the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, the Miami Herald and Newsday, reporting on various amateur and professional sports...."

I'm guessing with that experience he knows how to put a story together. He just phoned this one in. In my few years in the business, I've discovered there is a direct relationship between how interested and excited you are about your subject and the quality of story you turn in. I'm pleased with the attention SDSU is getting, but I think this is an example of how low interest = a story that's just OK.

[shinman]

Re: New York Times Story

I clicked on Pat Borzi to see what other articles he did.Found out he turned in two articles on Janruary 30, the one on SDSU & one titled "Curling team proves not all Brazilian sweepers play soccer"How's that for diversity, soccer, curling & womens basketball all in a week(?)Guy's gotta make a living, i just think he had too much on his plate at the time.I for one am thankful for any kind of press, although the article would have been better done with more depth.
I think the article being in the most prestigious news paper in the country say's a lot all by it's self.

[KUlawJack]

Re: New York Times Story

the article had a publish date of Jan 29... Was it in yesterday's paper?

I will check yesterday's paper. My bad.