Socrates 3 years, 7 months ago on Hawks softball rolls in Game 3

But to attribute luck to a sport? I can’t imagine any sports player having a positive reaction to their skill being attributed to luck. What would you say if you worked hours a day, five days a week, for years to achieve a certain level of skill and to eventually make an accomplishment, only for someone to say that you were merely lucky? Or perhaps on a more personal note for some, that you worked in your job for years, putting all your time and effort into it for a promotion, and finally get it, only for someone to go around and tell everyone that you only got it because you were lucky. Would you be angry? I know I would be.

But don’t get me wrong here. I can see where the author was attempting to attribute luck: the errors made by the other team and how Mill Creek capitalized on them. But I’m not sure I follow the logic behind that: how is one person making an error suddenly a lucky break for the other team? In my mind, the better team, the more skilled team, is the team that makes the least amount of errors while striving to take advantage of the opportunities that the other team left open. The players practice day in and day out so that these errors don’t occur; wouldn’t it be feasible to deduce that if Team A made more errors and Team B made less errors, then Team B is the more likely to win? Naturally, I assume that the game of competitive softball is a bit more complex than being reduced to such a simplistic deduction. But what I am trying to emphasize with it is that by the author attributing to luck one team’s capitalizing on the other’s team’s errors, he is effectively undermining the former’s team effort and skill.

So, to sum up a rather lengthy post, I would like to spell out the issue I have. There appears to be two possible reasons for why this article was published the way it is. The first is that it was designed with obvious bias against the Mill Creek team, something that reflects negatively on both the author and the Gwinnett Daily Post as a whole when they should be striving to be an objective, trustworthy source. If this is the case, then believe me when I say that you should be ashamed to consider what you write as any form of rhetoric. The second, and hopefully more likely, is that the author and editors did not invest as much time as they should have into the review of this article and missed the antagonistic draw in. If this is the case, then I would humbly suggest that you take a bit more time to review what you publish. I know human error is inevitable, but as a media source that informs thousands, you are held to a higher position of responsibility than others. You cannot afford to make such mistakes and still uphold a respectable reputation.

Any and all response would be welcome, especially from a representative of the paper. I would love to have a better understanding of the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of this article.


Socrates 3 years, 7 months ago on Hawks softball rolls in Game 3

Sometimes, it’s better to be subjective instead of objective. Unless you’re part of the media. In which case, objectivity should always take precedence. And unless I’ve missed my guess, the Gwinnett Daily Post would like to consider itself part of the media.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Subjective bias is an inseparable part of a human being; one can no more remove themselves from bias than one can remove themselves from emotions or thoughts. But I’ve always operated under the assumption that those who seek to inform the masses, an admirable goal if I’ve ever known one, would do their best to offer their information in a manner that is both professional and objective with just a tinge of the ‘human’ element (see: humor, allusions, metaphors, etc) to draw interest from readers.

But it seems my assumption was made in false ideals, if reading this article is anything to go by. I hesitate to make such a sweeping judgment on an entire group of people based on the actions of one, but I find it difficult to justify how this was allowed to be published when the poor wording could have, and certainly has, provoked many frustrated and upset responses. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, those at the Gwinnett Daily Post, that words have power. I’m sure that I don’t need to tell you that even if your desire for words to have a certain impact, you have to be careful not to send the opposite message. And I’m sure that I don’t need to tell you that the first sentence of your article, the one so obviously designed to catch the eye of the reader and prove interesting enough to read the rest of the article, should be the first and most important sentence to scrutinize.

Please humor my elementary understanding of journalism as I try to understand what you attempted to do and offer any insight to what I might be missing.

“Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good. Seventh-ranked Mill Creek was both.”

This is clearly the biggest source of conflict here. Now if I am correct in my assumption that the first sentence of the article is meant to pull the reader into the story (which may be wrong, I am merely deducing this from what I would expect logically), then you very clearly succeeded. For better or worse, that is. Lucky, while not an innately negative word, was not the best choice to make here unless your desire was to anger a majority of Mill Creek fans. Perhaps in betting on racing, or getting the last box of your cereal from the grocery store, or finding an extra 20 you forgot about in your coat pocket, one would consider lucky an excellent word to describe the person with. Why? Because none of those things take any skill.