By JASON CARRIS
The Daily Journal, Vineland, N.J.

When a significant percentage of newspapermen take time from their busy schedules to respond to an e-mail survey — most within 24 hours of receiving said questionnaire — you know you have a hot-button issue on the table.

This month's roundtable topic — the omission of section critiques from the annual APSE contest judging — seems to have struck a nerve with more than a handful of association members. It sparked a wide range of opinions on the legitimacy, the usefulness and the proper place for section critiques.

A daily section scorecard form from the annual APSE contest judging, which, along with special sections and Sunday sections, was eliminated from this year's contest. Members, for the most part, agreed they would like to have them back, if not at the annual contest, possibly in some other form. "This would be a service I'd be willing to pay for," said Jeff Kidd.

Some sports editors didn't miss the critiques one bit. Others were dismayed, even upset, that the critiques were not available this year.

"I missed them," said Tom Widlowski, assistant sports editor of the Austin American-Statesman. "Obviously, it's not a perfect form of feedback to have sometimes hastily written critiques that address a small sampling of work and sometimes points out the negative. But it was feedback, and it was feedback from outside the building, with no agenda."

Mike Sherman, sports editor at The Oklahoman, agreed: "I thought it was a mistake to eliminate them from the contest."

Jeff Kidd of the Hilton Head Island Packet was truly disappointed. With budget and scheduling constraints at his under-40,000 paper, he hasn't been able to attend a summer convention to receive a one-on-one APSE critique.

"Frankly, I felt a bit cheated," about not getting a contest critique, Kidd said. "The peer review is one of my primary motivations for APSE membership."

On the opposite side, Dennis Peck of the Oregonian and Randy Harvey of the Baltimore Sun had no interest in being judged and critiqued.

Peck: "They (critiques) lost their value after about the 10^th time someone told me, 'You really need more space.' Tell me something I don't know."

Harvey said he was "not interested" in having his contest entries critiqued. He doesn't believe the contest is the proper venue for critiques, an opinion shared by many.

Instead, Harvey suggested "having someone from within the market do the critiques. I wouldn't mind the Washington Post or Washington Times doing ours. They understand our readership, our market, our limitations."

Nearly 30 sports editors from all shapes and sizes of newspapers from all parts of the country responded. Here's what the survey revealed:

• Half of the editors said they were disappointed they didn't receive critiques. Most of those were from small- and medium-sized papers.

• Some said the critique was a major reason they entered the contest; some said the critique helped explain why they didn't win.

"I was very upset when first informed of the decision to end the critiques," said Jay Greeson of the Times Free Press in Chattanooga, Tenn. "One, we felt we had a very good chance at placing in a couple of section categories. After not making the cut, I was curious why. Then, I wondered if our entries were even received. ... I have judged contest three times and our paper has sent someone each of the last six years, so I know it is not an easy process, especially the sections. But I think it is a very worthwhile project."

• Most agreed critiques usually were harsh, negative and the 50-word synopsis didn't accomplish much.

• Few, if any, said they made "significant changes" to their sections based on a suggestion from an APSE contest critiques.

• Opinions varied greatly on the best venue for APSE critiques. Some said the contest is the best place to do them, mainly because each entry is reviewed by three or four objective sets of eyes. Others suggested the best critiques came from one-on-ones at the convention.

• All but two sports editors said they would participate in a critique program outside of the parameters of the contest or the convention.

"Very much so," said Doug Roberson of the Newport News Daily Press. "Too many papers don't take advantage of the resources and experience APSE offers. There's no way to make them do it, but perhaps some sort of before-and-after session might be nice, so that other editors learn they really can make a difference in their section. Or perhaps, a session where an editor of one of the "big" papers shows an editor of a "small" paper how they can apply something to the smaller section ...  ideas that work for the NFL can also work for high school."

• Editors offered a variety of suggestions to address the contest critique issue:

Jim Knight of the Ann Arbor News suggested forming a critique panel and charging a small fee.

Along the same lines, Jeff Kidd at the Hilton Head Island Packet suggested an APSE event that focused solely on critiques and section reviews. "This would be a service I would be willing to pay for (and a service my publisher would probably pay for)."

Ron Gullberg of the Casper Star-Tribune suggested incorporating critiques into the monthly newsletter, touching on ways to deal with problems such as space and resource limitations, how/why to use cutouts, storytelling, balancing local and national news.

And, finally, there was ...

"Bring them back."

Jason Carris is the sports editor for the The Daily Journal in Vineland, N.J.

 Back to index