I’m not sure if ‘human interests’ is a fitting label with which to describe the focus of the USA Today story on the results of The Acme World Oyster Eating championships, but reading it sure made me interested in the unique humans who participated in the event.  

The anecdotal lead, which includes the names–”Deep Dish” and “Crazy Legs”–of the champion and one of his competitors, respectively, introduces a story founded solidly upon the iron bellies of those in participation.  Writing that “Patrick “Deep Dish” Bertoletti looked down at the litter of empty oyster shells in front of him and savored the sweet taste of victory…For Crazy Legs Conti, the bitter taste of defeat could be washed away only by beer”  is an informal, yet good, way to provide the ‘What’ of the story while simultaneously generating interest in its colorful characters.  The paragraph quoted above also has the effect of drawing readers in to find out more by omitting the name of the championship, which is saved for the second paragraph.

The second paragraph is creative in its manner of revealing information: the name of the tournament and the day on which it took place, the way the championship belt looks, Bertoletti’s skinny appearance, age, residency, and winning number of mollusks munched, and the zoological term for the class of animal under which the contest’s fare falls is all cleverly fit into in two sentences using a total of only 42 words.  

The third paragraph is noteworthy for its strategic quotation of Bertoletti.  It reads, ‘ “I could probably do a couple dozen more, especially if they were charbroiled,” said Bertoletti, who holds the endurance oyster-eating record, having downed 53 1/2 dozen in 2007 before calling it quits.  ”Although they’re great raw.” ‘  These two sentences answer questions likely to arise in the minds of readers at this point: how the oysters were prepared (a relevant factor when considering the gastrointestinal challenge behind Bertoletti’s feat), and how many Bertoletti can eat without a time restaint–avoiding a ‘ “reversal of fortune” ‘ to add a record to the champ’s resume.

Next comes the results for the third place finisher, Conti.  The emphasis on Conti in the lead, and mention of him here before that of second place finisher Lee, is logical for a few reasons.  First and foremost, Conti has a great name for a human interests piece–his real first and middle names are Crazy and Legs, respectively.  Secondly, Crazy Legs provides a good quote for the next paragraph about the oyster’s lack of an aphrodisiacal quality when devoured in such high quantities.  Finally, the eccentric competitor is featured alongside of Bertoletti in the photo used for the story.  

At this point, the writer credits Juliet Lee for her second place finish.  This is reasonable, as I just said, but the next paragraph could include her name, if possible, to make things flow better.  If Lee is a professional eater who competes year-round in Major League Eaters events, the seventh paragraph’s sentence should be precluded with “Lee is one of…”  If Lee is not a pro, then it could be precluded with “While Lee was a unexpected entrant in the event, Bertoletti and Conti are two of…”  If none of the podium finishers are professional eaters, then it should read, “All of the podium finishers ousted (the) dozen professional eaters who compete in Major League Eaters events year-round [that] squared off at the French Quarter Festival on Saturday.   

The remainder of the story is solid, and it closes with a good quote:  ’ “I feel good about that; my goal was 15 dozen,” Zukowski said.  ”I had only eaten one raw oyster in my life before this and I thought I’d vomit after it.  I had them.” ‘  This shows the determination of the competitors, and is funny because most readers have probably lost any appetite they may have started with once they have finished reading this piece.  

Maybe I have been under a rock but I have not been following the news of the riots surrounding the carrying of the Olympic torch.  Today, I happened to see the headline “Protesters disrupt Olympic flame relay in Paris“.  I was curious, so I opened it. 

I was shocked to see how much hell the people carrying the torch have gone through. I have just been out of touch with this news, so as I read on I was wondering, “Why the drama?” 

I looked toward the end of the story for more background, but there was barely any.  It just said that protestors were rioting against China’s relationship with Tibet.  Has this been an ongoing issue?  What else is the issue? 

It makes me feel somewhat ignorant not knowing these important events that are taking place, so I look toward the media to tell me more.  Should this article tell me more?  Should it also go into more background or did it do enough?  How much background, if any, should articles include? 

Sometimes a story may have several different versions and a person will not read every one.  Like in this case, the first story I read did not give me all of the background information I needed.  However, I am sure if I look through the other articles I will find out more. 

Another example is in my hometown newspaper about a conman who ravaged people in Sweetwater.  One new article discusses how there has been a third arrest in the case.  The article does not give any background, so if a reader saw this for the first time, and had been under a rock they would be completely lost.  

It gave the important names but failed to discuss what and why and the past of the situation.  However, it does give a tip to read a related article that has more about the situation.  I guess that is how a writer can save space, stay in the word limit, without giving all the history of a story.

I just don’t understand how you know when to put in background and when not to include it.

I thought it would be appropriate this week to talk about a sports story since I have just completed one. This article from USAToday.com  describes the Chicago Cubs baseball game on March 30. The article is written much like any other sports coverage one but focuses a heavy deal on the fact that this is the Cub’s 100th year since winning a World Series because this is the most newsworthy.

The article follows the inverted pyramid rule quite nicely. The most important and most current information is in the first two paragraphs. Then as the article progresses there is a great deal of background of the “curse” that is supposedly haunting the Chicago Cubs. I thought the reporter did a good investigative job uncovering all of the theories that fans possess. He, the reporter, also provides a great deal of quotes from fans and from a Chicago Cub’s historian/expert. These quotes gave a lot of good information and authenticity to the piece.

Overall I thought the article was written well. I think the reporter could have given the gist of the story in a few less paragraphs, the overall story seemed quite daunting to read for a browsing reader.

USA Today’s cover story effectively presents the two sides of the controversy surrounding Major League Baseball’s new trend, all-you-can-eat seating sections.  
Michael McCarthy impresses with his thoughtfully laid-out juxtaposition of the opinions of those who love the idea and those who call it absurdly unhealthy.   His story presents the profitability for teams and enjoyment by fans of the novel concept, while countering these upsides with the experts’ scrutiny of the potentially health-risk-imposing implications.  The story jumps back and forth between the positive and the negative, invoking critical consideration from the reader.       
The quotes used in the story are particularly effective (and sometimes funny), including author Neal Pollack’s offerings:  ” ‘…a gluttonous orgy of stupidity.  The smell… was unbearable…By the end of the game, it was like sitting in a sewer.’”  The olfactory image this conjures is hilariously gross.  I can almost smell, and see, the gluttons chomping away–and emitting the gaseous consequences.    
 Although all this fuss about the seating arrangement that is growing in popularity is stimulating, the story also offers an underlying informative presentation of the facts:  ticket prices at notable stadiums, how it works, what kinds of foods/beverages are available, and which teams are introducing the concept are all included.   Furthermore, a helpful comparison of the average food intake by all-you-can-eat fans with the Agricultural Department’s recommended daily values aids readers in preventing personal subjection to the health risks associated with the ingestion of the kinds of junk you can eat at baseball games.    
  Overall, the story provides readers with a useful and provocative overview of this new–and, perhaps, alarming–development in the world of MLB.   
Oh, and one more thing: good job Richard Lui, of the Associated Press!  The cover photo is priceless!  (On the print version he captures three former jocks chowing down simultaneously.  One even has his tongue out as he eyes the mustard dripping from his hot dog.)  

Now be honest, who really watches the Super Bowl for the game? These days, bathroom breaks and beer refills are reserved for precious seconds during game play rather than during commercial breaks. With millions of dollars and viewers on the line, advertisers have managed to turn the masculine, burly event into a cultural phenomenon centered around advertisers and the lines they are willing to cross. But advertisers aren’t only faced with high price tags and the need to go over the edge. Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing those clever ad gurus is the dreaded advocacy group.

According to the USA Today article, “Advocacy groups keep marketers on their toes,”  groups such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention are the ones with the real power when it comes to Super Bowl advertisements. Advocacy groups of all shapes and sizes are keeping a watchful eye on not only the ads that run during the games, but on the companies who run the ads. During last years Super Bowl, for example, GM, a global powerhouse with an annual advertising budget of $3.3 billion, debuted a humorous ad featuring a washed-up assembly-line robot. After the robot dropped a screw during work, he/she (it?) had suicidal thoughts of jumping off a bridge. Millions of viewers found the ad to be clever and entertaining, just as Super Bowl ads should be. Robert Gebbia, executive director of the AFSP, and his colleagues, however, did not feel the same. The advocacy group saw the message in GM’s ad turning suicide into a comic punch line and demanded that the ad be yanked. A similar situation occurred with the Mars Masterfoods USA ad for Snickers. When two brawny auto mechanics accidentally smooched while sharing a Snickers bar, followed by their attempts to regain their masculinity by ripping out their chest hair, gay-rights groups went up in arms. Human Rights Campaign bigwigs complained in the morning and by the afternoon the controversial ad and all of its remnants had vanished from the web and all network television stations.

Obviously, advocacy groups have quite some power over corporations and the advertisements they spend millions of dollars on. Advocacy groups insist that their involvement in the cultural phenomenon that is the Super Bowl is not to garner support for their causes. Rather, the goal is to keep a critical eye on what messages are being sent to millions of viewers and more so to destroy those they feel are detrimental to society.

An article in USA today titled, Woods makes statement, wins Buick Invitational has me wondering about the current sports world. Over the last 8 years, everyone that has not been residing under a rock has heard of the magical, inexplicable, and downright amazing talents of Tiger Woods. We have seen the unbelievable shots that leave us wondering if they could be real. It seems to me that a consensus has been made among the world that deems Tiger as for the most part, simply unbeatable.

Maybe I am wrong, but if not, then why are we surprised that Tiger has done it again in his PGA tour debut? Were we not sure that he could keep his talents over the break? Did we really believe that a misconstrued racial comment would render Tiger useless? Or are we just dumbfounded at the fact that he just might be getting better? As opposed to being surprised that Tiger was won yet again, by an 8 shot margin, I believe that what is really hard to grasp is that he believes he is improving.

Without enhancing his already immaculate game, Tiger Woods would still undoubtedly go on to showcase his abilities and become the best to ever play the game. The fear of improvement is what is striking the USGA as well as Tigers “opponents”. The USGA is now looking into ways of challenging Tiger in the hopes that he will no longer dominate all of his “opponents.” Once again, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that making the courses harder, would clearly bring Tigers scores down, but wouldn’t the “opposition” perform worse as well?

I believe that this article is excellent in its broadcasting of Sundays outcome, but what I don’t understand is the mere fact of why we can’t believe that he is still the best golfer on the Tour.