Is this the "Onion", no it really isn't.....

[HonusWagner66]

Not even going to respond to that

Which part was incorrect? That Richards has whined after games? He has. That players get pissed when they get hit in the head? They do. Or people blow shit Sid says out of proportion? Cause that's true too.

Funny how you focused on Sid when Orpik says things like that all the time. Never see his name brought up amongst fans. Wonder why.

 

[Darkstone42]

Do any Pens fans ACTUALLY think the Stecks hit was dirty?

Penguins fume over controversial hit - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review


Also, I have heard Rob Rossi on the radio a ton, and never thought he looked like that...kind of a shocker....

I won't comment on what the players said, or any of the speculation of dirty vs. not dirty, because the only replay I saw it looked entirely accidental, but it was only one angle, but I do have a qualm with the writing of the article, and specifically one phrase:

"Crosby stopped short of saying that Steckel's hit was intended to injure the NHL's leading scorer, but there was a suspicious tone in his voice when commenting on the hit."

That's editorializing. You can't do that. Crosby's tone is not your concern as a writer, what he said is. When writing a newspaper article, you write "he/she said." That's it. No verb other than said. No adjectives.

/rant.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I won't comment on what the players said, or any of the speculation of dirty vs. not dirty, because the only replay I saw it looked entirely accidental, but it was only one angle, but I do have a qualm with the writing of the article, and specifically one phrase:

"Crosby stopped short of saying that Steckel's hit was intended to injure the NHL's leading scorer, but there was a suspicious tone in his voice when commenting on the hit."

That's editorializing. You can't do that. Crosby's tone is not your concern as a writer, what he said is. When writing a newspaper article, you write "he/she said." That's it. No verb other than said. No adjectives.

/rant.

Incorrect. It is the journalist's duty to detect and convey the athlete's mood during media sessions (and beyond).

These are not academic journals. Nor is this a court of law.

From seeing many of Crosby's press conferences I know that he intentionally uses his tone to let the public know how he feels without risking a fine. This is a double edged sword. He, nor his fans, can dodge the use, or the implication, of these covert communications when it suits them.

 

[HonusWagner66]

Journalists are allowed to describe the way someone is talking if it is relevant to the story and is based on a solid judgement, meaning it is fairly obvious that is the tone being used. In this case it is so no big deal.

 

[Darkstone42]

Incorrect. It is the journalist's duty to detect and convey the athlete's mood during media sessions (and beyond).

These are not academic journals. Nor is this a court of law.

From seeing many of Crosby's press conferences I know that he intentionally uses his tone to let the public know how he feels without risking a fine. This is a double edged sword. He, nor his fans, can dodge the use, or the implication, of these covert communications when it suits them.

That's not how it's written in the AP Journal on my bookshelf. The way I was taught when I wrote for a newspaper was that the fewer adjectives I used the better. I was also taught to use the most generic word for every action. My editors would have removed "suspicious tone" and reprimanded me.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

That's not how it's written in the AP Journal on my bookshelf. The way I was taught when I wrote for a newspaper was that the fewer adjectives I used the better. I was also taught to use the most generic word for every action. My editors would have removed "suspicious tone" and reprimanded me.

It's terrible writing, but the the reporter has the right/responsibility to observe and convey what they hear and/or see.

Depending on what kind of piece this was, including adjectives is just fine. If it is a AP press release or report, yes you should stick to the bare bones. If it's a more in depth story, include more details.

Saying that someone says something in "a suspicious tone" sounds like something a high school student would write. If the reporter had simply said that Crosby said he had no problem with the hit, but his tone appeared to suggest otherwise, it would have avoided including one of your dreaded adjectives. It would have read better too, IMO.

Honestly though the writing stinks. It is getting harder and harder to find decent journalists these days, in any field.

 

[Darkstone42]

It's terrible writing, but the the reporter has the right/responsibility to observe and convey what they hear and/or see.

Depending on what kind of piece this was, including adjectives is just fine. If it is a AP press release or report, yes you should stick to the bare bones. If it's a more in depth story, include more details.

Saying that someone says something in "a suspicious tone" sounds like something a high school student would write. If the reporter had simply said that Crosby said he had no problem with the hit, but his tone appeared to suggest otherwise, it would have avoided including one of your dreaded adjectives. It would have read better too, IMO.

Honestly though the writing stinks. It is getting harder and harder to find decent journalists these days, in any field.

Agreed all around. Reading the newspaper is painful. Even the "good" ones. Everyone wants to write Op-Ed and no one wants to just report the news.

 

[HonusWagner66]

That's not how it's written in the AP Journal on my bookshelf. The way I was taught when I wrote for a newspaper was that the fewer adjectives I used the better. I was also taught to use the most generic word for every action. My editors would have removed "suspicious tone" and reprimanded me.

If it's a feature story telling through the eyes of the hockey players, the adjectives are acceptable if they are relevant to the story. Straight news story wouldn't use them.