30 runs -- and the coverage thereof

G-Fin · **Posted:** Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:35 pm

Any nominations for best/worst headlines for tonight's 30-run massacre?

For early editions, The Washington Post went with "Rangers Set a New High, / Orioles Reach a New Low," which I thought badly glossed over the point in an attempt to put a local (Baltimore) angle on the story.

I'm sure there's worse out there, though.

Also, I'm curious to know whether the story was Page One news for anyone. For something that hasn't happened in 110 years, it ought to be, in my opinion.

Vanderhoof Viking · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:45 am

To my mind, the weirdest thing was that the Rangers scored the 30 runs in just four innings. They had a five-run inning, a six-run, a nine-run and a 10-run.
Oh, and Baltimore did have the lead, which could lead some wacko to do something about an incredible comeback by the Rangers.
Other item of note: There was a save in the game. The final Texas pitcher pitched the last three innings, which automatically qualifies as a save, regardless of the score.

cobra_kai · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:42 am

G-Fin wrote:

Also, I'm curious to know whether the story was Page One news for anyone. For something that hasn't happened in 110 years, it ought to be, in my opinion.

The Baltimore Sun put it front and center, but I've seen very little mention anywhere else. After quick glance on Newseum, even the Texas papers settled for skyboxes or rail refers on the front. Definitely underplayed for any one of those papers that cover the Rangers.

Curiously enough, the Baltimore Examiner makes no mention of the game at all on its front.

Editer · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:13 am

cobra_kai wrote:

... even the Texas papers settled for skyboxes or rail refers on the front. Definitely underplayed for any one of those papers that cover the Rangers.

I don't know about that. My former bosses gave it the same real estate as Barry Bonds' 756* a few weeks ago. It only counts as one game in the standings, and all told it was a freak occurrence (four HRs and 14 RBIs by the 8 and 9 hitters, a grand slam by a guy fresh from AAA ball), not a majestic event for the ages.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:53 pm

It's news when a major league baseball team scores 30 runs, which hasn't occurred in more than a century, and readers will find it interesting, more so than most any other news event of the day, perhaps even beyond the sports section.

Editer · **Posted:** Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:27 am

jjmoney62 wrote:

It's news when a major league baseball team scores 30 runs, which hasn't occurred in more than a century

This is true.

Quote:

and readers will find it interesting, more so than most any other news event of the day, perhaps even beyond the sports section.

This is highly doubtful. The Rangers' home paper had a big takeout on the dangers of biological weapons research done in the area and a story on another megachurch about to be built in town. I doubt many readers would find a baseball score more interesting than those stories, for instance.

In fact, I suspect the baseball game wasn't even the most talked-about sports story of the day. Downpage on the cover was the story of the 59-year-old who's playing NCAA football this year. That's not just a first-in-more-than-a-century, that's a first-ever.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:20 am

One hed I saw was, "History in the aching."

Testy Copy Editors

30 runs -- and the coverage thereof

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links