Just to clarify my original post and some of the responses to it: 1. I don't intend to turn this into a format war or "internet circle jerk." I think we all know how those things turn out, and my concern is not that the article didn't endorse my viewpoint, but that there is a legitimate and substantial debate within the circuit over formats and questions that was not properly acknowledged. I recognize that NAQT and its members and supporters are entitled to their philosophies, and they are worth acknowledging and addressing. I am disappointed that the advocates of packet submission and strict academic competition were not given the same accord, instead being reduced to the image of a fringe minority not worth mentioning. While NAQT has been successful in influencing the circuit and establishing a public image, the facts remain that packet submission tournaments are considered the standard for college quiz bowl tournaments and that there still exists a noteworthy and longstanding controversy over the direction of the game. The reporter should have taken the same to look at any of the 3-4 major college quiz bowl websites/schedule databases to see the reality of the situation, and NAQT's members should have at least mentioned the existance of critics in a non-insulting manner. 2. Regarding accusations of hostility towards the success of figures like Ken Jennings and Kevin Olmstead, the specific words in the article were, "Certainly there is a _segment of the community_ dismayed by game shows and the questions they ask and that Ken Jennings or Kevin Olmstead, whom they don't perceive as the best quiz bowlers or the most knowledgeable, are rewarded so much." As far as I am aware, nobody _in the quiz bowl community_, regardless of his opinions on NAQT or game shows, has done anything but praise Jennings, Olmstead, et al. for their impressive success. So the existance of death threats from random TV viewers is not valid proof, as we are talking only about members of the community itself. Just as with the first issue, it seems as if the reporter failed to do the proper research or that those interviewed were being dishonest in an effort to make their critics look bad to the public. I don't know enough about the circumstances behind the article to tell which was the case, but either is unacceptable. While I understand that it is beneficial to have our game given mainstream press attention, it is also crucial that our game and circuit be portrayed accurately and correctly, because of the rarity with which it is spotlighted. Nobody expects a journalist to delve deep into the nuances in history of the game, but the mistakes I am concerned about were so glaring that even a half hour of cursory research or interviewing of other sources could have corrected them and provided an honest depiction of the circuit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST