By Ben Brigandi
Williamsport Sun-Gazette
APSE 3rd Vice-President
Associated Press Sports Editors members supported the 2012 contest change that introduced a beat writing category, but showed no consensus opinion on eliminating the game story category to alleviate the overall judging workload, according to an online members survey conducted this spring.
The survey link was emailed to all APSE members in May and received 141 responses. Of the respondents, 19 percent were in the over 175,000 contest category, 23 percent were in the 75,000-175,000 contest category, 32 percent were in the 30,000-75,000 contest category, and 26 percent were in the under 30,000 contest category. The survey, conducted anonymously, did not restrict responses to one per paper should a paper have multiple members. Results may show multiple responses from a single paper.
The contest portion of the survey posed two questions. The first asked if members favored the new beat writing category. The second question asked if the game story, or some other category, should remain eliminated and supplied a matrix of choices. All responses were based on a Likert scale.
Seventy-two percent of the respondents said either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the new beat writing category, which aimed to identify expertise and command on an area of coverage. Seventeen percent responded “neutral” while 16 percent either responded “disagree” or “strongly disagree.”
APSE worried about negative response from smaller papers on the new category, but 66 percent of those from under 30,000 papers responded positively. Just 14 percent of them responded negatively. Responses across all four contest categories were similar as far as positive vs. negative response.
However, smaller papers did not wish to see the game story category eliminated, as 40 percent of the under 30,000 category responded “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement, “Don’t eliminate any. Find a way to make it all work,” while 44 percent were neutral.
Larger papers were almost the exact opposite, with 55 percent of them responding “strongly agree” or “agree” to the statement “Eliminate game story.”
No clear consensus emerged from either of the middle two classifications on eliminating an awards category.
Open-ended responses and suggestions were welcomed at the end.
Among under 30,000 members, one who liked the new category suggested investigative and explanatory might be condensed into one category since entries often overlap for style and approach. One who disliked the new category feared that a small paper where the staff juggles multiple roles limited the quality of a beat writing entry. A few suggested at least clarifying the requirements of explanatory to avoid overlap with other categories.
Among 30,000-75,000 members, some suggested electronic submissions instead of mailed printouts or clippings glued to separate sheets of paper. One member suggested breaking down the contest by staff size instead of circulation size. Two members favored either eliminating breaking news or folding it into the web contest since most news stories are broken online today.
Among 75,000-175,000 members, one suggested losing special sections as a contest category since many papers no longer publish them. Another suggested losing the time-consuming investigative or project categories, since papers have dropped them as a result of staff cuts and digital emphasis.
Among above 175,000 members, one suggested the web contest expand to include all digital products, such as mobile and tablet apps, instead of a standard web site. Another suggested bringing judging back to the west coast, as it has been held in Orlando or Indianapolis the last 3 years. Another member suggested cutting judging groups from 4 to 3 to get more done, and also thought the beat writing rules need improved to avoid a career achievement/popularity award.
