Why we do — or don’t — do the things we do
Friday, October 19th, 2007Â Equal Time asked this question on our forum (which is being phased out, so please either e-mail questions or put them on the blog)
 ”I have noticed that you characters always quote that RB Brown from East when East wins and he rushes for 300 yards. But no one interviews him after the East loses. Are you guys a-scared to talk to the losing players? Maybe he would have something interesting to say. If he’s the story of the year and a national story, like Joanna C says, then he’s a story and worth interviewing when East gets beat. Yes?”
Thanks, Equal Time for the question. Not sure about the “characters” reference, but here you go.
Let’s say we’re covering a game between two local teams. Usually how it works after the game is we make sure to talk to the winning coach and at least one player from the winning team. We also try to get the losing coach, as well. It’s pretty rare that we grab a losing player, regardless of who that losing player is.
Now, take the instance of Carroll at Great Bend last year in the semifinals. My focus there is on the area team, which lost, because it’s an area team. So I get the winning coach, the losing coach and the losing players.
There’s no conspiracy to only talk to the Browns when they win and not when they lose. I think it would have been wrong last week, for instance, to focus only on the East player and disregard the Derby players who were victorious.
Again, thanks for the question.




