Macclesfield Express - reduced coverage for the Harriers
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:57 amThe following was sent by Helen Williams, the press officer, regarding coverage in the Macc Express... looks like we're losing out to Football... anybody want to give some feedback!
------------------------------
Hi Barry
Many thanks for this & the Trans-Penine results. You may have noticed the reports have been getting shorter and shorter in the paper - this is due to a new sports editor there who seems to prefer football. Last week (& other weeks) for instance we got given 100 words compared to the old sports editor's average of 250! I can only apologise to those who didn't get a mention despite full results being submitted to the paper and apologise in advance for this week's omissions.
I thought your report on both these was great and am just sorry I couldn't give them in full to the paper! Please keep sending them like that if you have time, as I find it interesting and should we ever get more space, I'll have something to put in it. If I give up the PO job, I shall know where to come!
Incidentally, please pass on my personal congratulations to all those who competed in these two races, I am always impressed by the success of our fell/road running section. Until I became PO I had no idea what those parts of the club were doing. It's one of the priveleges of being the PO - you get to know what everyone's done even if the paper don't publish it!
Thanks again,
Helen
PS: I'm currently considering whether it's best for me to send just a print-out of results ie: name & position, times if appropriate, and a minimalistic report (like this week's) to the paper rather than a more descriptive report and fewer names. What do you/the fell/road runners think? What would they prefer? More names and less 'blurb' or a balance of the two which is what I have aimed for in the past?
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this if you have time.
------------------------------
Hi Barry
Many thanks for this & the Trans-Penine results. You may have noticed the reports have been getting shorter and shorter in the paper - this is due to a new sports editor there who seems to prefer football. Last week (& other weeks) for instance we got given 100 words compared to the old sports editor's average of 250! I can only apologise to those who didn't get a mention despite full results being submitted to the paper and apologise in advance for this week's omissions.
I thought your report on both these was great and am just sorry I couldn't give them in full to the paper! Please keep sending them like that if you have time, as I find it interesting and should we ever get more space, I'll have something to put in it. If I give up the PO job, I shall know where to come!
Incidentally, please pass on my personal congratulations to all those who competed in these two races, I am always impressed by the success of our fell/road running section. Until I became PO I had no idea what those parts of the club were doing. It's one of the priveleges of being the PO - you get to know what everyone's done even if the paper don't publish it!
Thanks again,
Helen
PS: I'm currently considering whether it's best for me to send just a print-out of results ie: name & position, times if appropriate, and a minimalistic report (like this week's) to the paper rather than a more descriptive report and fewer names. What do you/the fell/road runners think? What would they prefer? More names and less 'blurb' or a balance of the two which is what I have aimed for in the past?
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this if you have time.