InkTank

Manny the Magnificient

It was a drubbing.

Manny Pacquiao beat Antonio Margarito on November 13, (literally) to capture his eighth title in eight separate weight classes, adding one more belt to his record as the best fighter in the world.

Pacquiao won the fight by unanimous decision on Saturday night and solidified his standing as pound-for-pound the greatest boxer in the world today. Many columnists are touting him as possibly the greatest fighter ever.

In the fight, he treated Margarito like a rag-doll and after the bout, doctors found out that an orbital bone in Maragito's face was fractured, causing Margarito to remain in the hospital overnight. All of the stories pertaining to the fight did a thorough job of describing how the pummeling sets Pacquiao in the history books, but the Associated Press story made one mistake that was particularly confusing.

The lede of the story was good. It opened the article by immediately commenting on what the majority of pre-fight talk centered on, Pacquiao gave up nearly 20 pounds and six inches of reach to his challenger. It is short and to the point.

Manny Pacquiao more than made up with speed what he lacked in size.

The second paragraph does a nice job of explaining the lede and setting the stage for the rest of the article. The word choice is interesting and creates good imagery with "little" and "dizzying."

Giving away both pounds and inches, boxing's little superstar turned Antonio Margarito into a bloody and nearly blind fighter with a dizzying array of punches Saturday night in a lopsided decision victory that wasn't close from the opening rounds on.

However, the fifth paragraph is where the issue arises. Readers are thrown this paragraph, which without background context or prior knowledge is completely confusing.

The beating was so thorough that the congressman from the Philippines turned to referee Laurence Cole several times in the 11th round, imploring him to stop the fight. It went on, though, even though Margarito had no chance to win.

Unknown sources

What to do with unnamed sources. People giving comments annonymously usually give more information, but the search for fact is a tricky one. If journalists are supposed to be trusted, do we need to get rid of the "the root of evil in journalism"?

A recent article on ESPN.com, used a plethora of nameless sources talking about Minnesota Vikings Head Coach, Brad Childress and his possible firing. The lede of the story is based entirely off this use of sources.

After Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf spoke with members of the organization, including players, prior to Sunday's game against the Arizona Cardinals, he left some with the impression he was still contemplating firing coach Brad Childress regardless of whether the Vikings won or lost, several sources told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen.

The story is completely hinged on what an annonymous source said. The story goes on to use team executives and player, quoted sans name. In addition, Wilf spoke to the media but gave no inclination as to what his intentions were. The report is enthralling and contains plenty of information against Childress, but it is unclear whether it is truth or simply petty comments but frustrated players. Just because a player is a veteran doesn't mean that they should be automatically trusted.

After the ESPN piece was run, other news outlets used it to corroborate their own stories. This seems dangerous. If the stories ends up being false, every single story written on the subject is false. No article written on the situation was able to use a source other than Wilf, Childress, Percy Harvin or Brett Favre, with Favre and Harvin having little to add to the conversation.

East Coast Baseball

Ok, I was caught up in Stephen Strasburg mania too.

After just one start, he became the biggest story in Major League Baseball. As a fellow pitcher (albeit the Geo Metro to Strasburg's McLaren F1), I was ecstatic to watch the phenom throw explosive fastballs, knee-buckling breaking balls and gravity-defying changeups. Then, he got hurt.

After coming to grips with the fact I would not get the incredible privilege of watching him pitch, I headed out to the Nationals Park anyway. Being from Minnesota, I was finally spoiled as a baseball fan, moving from the Humptydump to the majestic (that's right, MAJESTIC) Target Field, with its beautiful backdrop of the city.

What Not To Do...

Interested in broadcast? Here's a great example of what NOT to do....

Los Angeles Dodger girl at Orioles game equals NO

       

I was born a Los Angeles Dodger fan- always was, and always will be. Going to baseball games as a child was always fun for me- fans singing the "Take me out to the ball game" song, my dad's beer spilling everywhere while cheering for the team, throwing a fist in the air, screaming, "CHARGE!" eating delicious Dodger dogs, and hitting people with beach balls in our seating section.

Coming to Washington, D.C. to study for a semester has been a new experience, but most definitely somewhat stretching, since I won't be able to attend a Dodger game. It has been three months that I’ve been to a game, and when I arrived to D.C., I thought, "It's time to recharge.”   When I found out that WJC director, Terry Mattingly, planned to take WJC students to a Baltimore Orioles game the first week of classes, I was relieved.

On game night, I decided to not wear my Dodger gear, because who knows, I might get shot.