Re: Misrepresentations in the Post article

• From: oilbaronsball <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:23:50 -0000
• Message-ID: <ck0h3m+9k3c_at_...>

I do not think you can properly consider ACF a "vendor."  ACF's 
primary function is as a repository of talent that maintains a set of 
rules and hires people from that repository of talent to edit each of 
their three yearly tournaments and, in the case of ACF Fall and ACF 
Regionals, reach out and work with regional hosts.  Unlike NAQT, ACF 
(1) does not pay writers for questions; (2) its tournaments are 60-
80% submission while NAQT's are fully central source, and (3) ACF 
neither sells practice questions nor questions for high school.  NAQT 
is a registered company; ACF is incorporeal by comparison.

My second and more important point refers to balancing the story.  As 
previously implied, NAQT has a much more public face than ACF.  
Therefore, I would expect it would be easier to contact NAQT to ask 
questions for an article than ACF.  I doubt the reporters knew of the 
existance of ACF, and I believe the NAQT folks interviewed for the 
article knew of the reporters' ignorance.  In addition, the reporter 
does not have a large enough understanding of our passtime to 
consider delving further upon hint of the idea of "submission."  One 
tenet of journalism is to depict varying viewpoints and multiple 
sides in a general article.  However, if one side (i.e., ACF) does 
not appear to exist, how can the reporter write about it?  The NAQT 
folks are no more obligated nor benefited than the reporter is to 
delve into ACF.

Overall, it was a good article for failing to marginalize quizbowlers 
by calling them "brainiacs" and such and introducing the unwashed 
masses to our game, even if they could only find and write about half 
of our tradition.

Dan