Bill Eichenberger

Another APSE contest has come and gone, with its lists of section and writing winners. They are the feel-good stories.

But there is another list that is not posted on any bulletin board or Web site, but should be. They are the feel-bad stories, the list of sports editors discouraged and disheartened by section critiques that were too mean-spirited and critical.

The number of these is dwindling as we stress to judges that they be constructive in their criticisms. But one is too many.

David Williams is the sports editor of the Goldsboro (N.C.) News-Argus, a 21,000 afternoon paper with a full-time staff of three. They cover 15 public and private high schools and one Division II university with a full slate of men's and women's sports.

And according to the judges in the under-40,000 category, they don't do a very good job. "Essentially, I think you need to take a serious look at the entire operation," his daily critique said. "These sections just looked like whoever was in the office did whatever he or she wanted."

After the judging, in a letter to former APSE president John Cherwa that was forwarded to me, Williams said he was planning to pull his paper out of APSE, saying:

"I used to enjoy the feedback I got from contest judging and tried to use it to help my section improve. But the comments I got from judges this past year leave me thinking that my section was more the butt of jokes from tired judges that have no clue what we do here and how we serve our readership."

Williams, a former contest judge vice chair of the Atlantic Region, said he doesn't put his paper in the contest expecting to win. "I can stand the criticism, and I am not complaining that we should have been a Top 10 paper.

"And I understand this sounds like sour grapes," he wrote. "But I guess getting kicked around when you ask for help kind of hurts your pride."

Williams wrote that his critique is one more indication that APSE "is only for big newspapers and serves no function for smaller dailies like mine. Further, I do not think the rank and file of APSE are even aware of how out of touch they are with the challenges and issues facing small papers."

As the president of APSE and a sports writer who worked at more than his share of small newspapers, Williams' letter struck a chord with me. I called him in mid-March, almost a month after the contest judging, to see if his feelings about APSE and the contest had changed. He told me they have not.

I want to try to change his mind. I think the future of this organization is dependent on us being more in tune with the smaller newspapers. At last count, there were more than three times as many under-40,000 newspapers in APSE (155) as over 250,000 (45).

But the numbers alone are the least important reason to be concerned. David is right, those of us in APSE at papers with larger staffs and more resources do need to remember the limitations on the smaller papers when judging their work.

I am not suggesting that we lower our standards or cut the smaller papers too much slack. I expected criticism from my section critiques when I was sports editor of the Macon Telegraph, and I was rarely disappointed. I knew I was young and inexperienced and needed help. I wanted to know what we could be doing better. But I did not expect to be insulted or have my work ethic questioned, and, fortunately, I never was.

Judging the under-40,000 sections is the most challenging assignment in the contest. And I am grateful for those who handle that responsibility, including this year's group. The sheer number of entries wears down judges, and the limitations of staff and space, along with the inexperience of many of the staffers at smaller papers, make it easy for judges to fall into a negative and destructive tone.

On the other hand, some sports editors with tiny staffs and newsholes are doing tremendous journalism in spite of the obstacles. The contest rewards those editors. But it is also supposed to give hope and encouragement to those who seem to be fighting a losing battle.

That is what the contest is designed to do, and for the most part, I think that is what it does.

As for APSE's attitude toward smaller newspapers, I think David is wrong when he writes: "APSE is indeed run by media conglomerates and sports journalists who forgot from whence they came."

I think a lot of us do remember our roots and have a great deal of respect for the special challenges facing smaller-paper sports editors. I also think David needs to be reminded that the smaller papers are not the only target of critiques that miss the mark.

As for changes to address David's concerns, we have discussed adding a cover sheet to section entries describing staff size and market, but have felt that it would complicate and further slow down a judging process that already is a tremendous burden on those who do it. We may need to reconsider that for the under-40,000 papers.

We also have discussed lowering the circulation limit for the smallest papers to better balance the number of papers in each of the four circulation categories. That is another idea we should revisit.

In the meantime, I want to thank David for his honest and eloquent letter expresssing his concerns about APSE. And I hope he will reconsider his decision to pull out of the organization.

Instead, I'm asking him to please help us make APSE more relevant and useful to all of our members, including that 21,000 p.m. with a staff of three in eastern North Carolina that is hurting right now.

• • •

You can reach Bill Eichenberger of Newsday via e-mail at eichenberger@newsday.com.