Why are there so many errors in sports news articles?

Question

I am a baseball fan, so I often read results of the games. Sometimes, I'll watch a game, read the recap, and say, "Wait a minute... that's not what happened." I'll go back to the source and realize that the reporter messed up completely.

How hard is it to get the facts straight when reporting on sports? I wonder if the same thing happens with reporters on other current events? How can you not be detail-oriented when you're a journalist reporting on facts. Maybe I should get a job as a sports writer? I'd do much better than the stuff I read.

Answer 1

It's hard because you often have a deadline to your editors to get scores and stories in, sometimes before the game even ends, in order to make the printing deadline for the next day's paper. And sometimes their papers will hold their deadline and press till the end of the game if on the west coast, but we're talking the minute the game ends. So they're typing a mile a minute to get the stories in and done on a game while it's still going on. Should they be reviewed for error checking by the sports editor? Yes, and mostly like they catch a lot too, but sometimes that luxury doesn't exist.

Sometimes for smaller papers, the sports reporters write stories based on watching the games not at the stadium or have to get information second hand, this also leads to some errors though not intentionally (whisper down the lane-ish).

Answer 2

Mistakes happen mostly because of time pressures. For example, the Associated Press sends its first recap of a baseball game out literally a few minutes after the end of the game. That means most of the story is written as the game goes along. When developments change the story line late in the game, rewriting is needed ... and mistakes happen.

Technology is nice, as it has made it possible for stories to appear on the Internet instantly. The catch is that there is less time to catch mistakes. There's always pressure to be first, although being right is more important.

Admittedly, some people are better at getting the story right and fast than others. But I've found reporters generally get most things right. Even the worst will only mess up a couple of facts at worst when under severe time constraints. Try it sometime -- you'll see it's not so easy.

Answer 3

the full article is amazingly simplistic. it sort of feels, truthfully, that each and each team that took on a participant became right into a "winner," and each team that traded away a participant became right into a "loser." the reasoning for triumphing gave the look to be that notwithstanding team further xyz participant, that the participant 'is going to make his team greater perfect.' nicely, of direction they are going to. yet there became into no actual assessment of whether the team particularly mandatory that style of participant or in the event that they gave up too many potentialities to get them. for occasion: Atlanta--desperately mandatory some skill in the lineup, and that they commerce for a speed guy with 0 skill. yet no remark on that. Milwaukee--McGehee is atrocious and that they are nevertheless truthfully working out Betancourt each and every activity, yet they upload a sequence-up guy. talk on the coolest judgment of that? nope. Cleveland--traded their farm equipment for a tumbler who's lost 3 mph on his fastball and did not require him to take a actual. kinda involved in that. might have enjoyed to income it. yet no, the Indians have been "winners" in basic terms because of the fact they traded for somebody. by utilising Passan's reasoning, the Yankees might desire to have traded Montero for Mike Adams as a fashion to become "winners," even however that could have been stupid for the Yankees to do.

Answer 4

lots of stuff is an opinion. i will see a player go after a ball and miss it...to me its an error, but the sports people gloss over it saying just to get to the ball was good in itself.

Answer 5

maybe the writer had a few too many cold ones at the game.