Early morning, Saturday, September 4th, the following article was published in the Victoria Advocate in the print edition and on-line:
Shine 0, Brazos 52
Originally published September 4, 2010 at 1:12 a.m., updated September 4, 2010 at 1:12 a.m.
Shiner might be heading home with their tails between their legs after being dominated by Brazos, the score being 52 to 0. It seems right from the start Brazos had control of the game, by mounting touchdown after touchdown, racking big stats like M. Wallace - 13 rushing for 111 yards. The one-sided game seems to be an absolute victory for Brazos and a horrible nightmare for Shiner.
story source: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/sep/04/shiner_0904_109877/?sports&local-sports
Needless to say, many Shiner Comanche fans objected to the errors and the editorial tone of the above article. During the day on Saturday, a number of folks called and wrote the Victoria Advocate to express their displeasure ... many of their comments are recorded here below for future reference (& humor value!). Finally, late on Saturday evening, the Advocate revised the on-line story and Victoria Advocate Sports Editor Stephen Herzog added an apology to the commentary on-line.
Here's the revised story ...
Shiner 52, Brazos 0And here's a copy of the on-line comments for your reading enjoyment ...
Originally published September 4, 2010 at 10:30 p.m., updated September 4, 2010 at 10:30 p.m.
The Shiner Comanches defeated Brazos in convincing fashion on Friday in a 52-0 win.
Marlon Wallace and Evel Jones both scored in the first quarter to give Shiner an early lead, and they never looked back.
The entire Shiner team was strong in the Week 1 game, but Wallace ran all over the defense, including a 75-yard touchdown run in the fourth quarter for the icing on the cake.
The Comanches improved to 1-1 on the season and will take on Schulenburg next week. Schulenburg defeated St. Joseph on Saturday.
story source: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/sep/04/shiner_0904_109877/?sports&local-sports
COMMENTS (listed in ascending date/time order for ease of reading!)
September 4, 2010 at 7:24 a.m.
Yall might want to remove that post. Because the score was Shiner 52 Brazos 0. M. Wallace is a halfback for Shiner! Might just want to make sure you know what your talking about.
September 4, 2010 at 8:24 a.m.
APRIL FOOL IN SEPTEMBER!!!
"Advocate Sports disses Comanches in error"
Late Friday night, a hilarious transposition in the score of Shiner @ Brazos game caused an Advocate staffer to write a backwards story of Shiner's second football game of the season. Rather than reporting on Shiner's dominant performance at Wallis on Friday night, the Advocate called out the Comanches as "returning home with their tails between their legs."
The animal metaphor was lost on Shiner fans early Saturday morning as the story was received with a mixture of laughter and aggravation. Shiner coaches and players would not comment on the record, but local experts suggested that the turnover in Advocate Sports staffers must be to blame. "No writer with any understanding of Comanche football tradition would have made such a mistake," said one fan.
Elsewhere in print and on-line, the Advocate did print the game score and statistics correctly, identifying Shiner players as the only scorers and dominating in all offensive categories. Chalk it up to a test of the Comanches sense of humor and early season jitters by the Advocate staff.
After a slow start last week, the Comanches offense really got on track at Brazos and rolled to a big win. Shiner's Marlon Wallace scored 3 TD's on the ground, Zach Lawrence scored twice, Caleb Curtis and Evel Jones each once, and Brady Beal caught a TD pass from Wesley Patek. Meanwhile, Shiner's defense held Brazos to under 100 yards of total offense and forced 7 punts.
The Comanches will host Schulenburg at their home opener on September 10th at Comanche Stadium.
GO SHINER ... can you hear the drums??? ;)
September 4, 2010 at 8:37 a.m.
"Shine 0, Brazos 52"?
Not just the score is screwed up, but I simply don't know of ANY town named "Shine"!
Unless, wait....is that where shiny, happy people live?
September 4, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.
Funny how they can bust their butts as "taste police" and yank a comment or a post that technically fits their "guidelines" almost instantly, yet little foul-ups like this just fly right under their radar on a daily basis. If they spent as much time and effort proofreading the words of their own staff as they do policing the public, we'd all see a better, more accurate product.
September 4, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.
Now, Sugar, you know 'Shiner' should probably be 'Shine'--they are one of the Cleanest Little Towns in America or something like that. They certainly couldn't have that distinction without having some 'shine', now could they?
September 4, 2010 at 9:35 a.m.
Earlier this week they placed a story about the Texas Rangers three 'farm' teams on the Farm and Ranch page in the print edition.
I think the folks at the paper could find it useful to read the paper.
September 4, 2010 at 10:06 a.m.
Give me a break Advocate...
September 4, 2010 at 10:07 a.m.
I've seen poor writing from the Advocate before, but this one takes the cake. Without a remote comprehension or knowledge of football, the writer -- in addition to the most obvious of blunders -- even used "seems" to interject opinion into the opening paragraph of a sports news story.
I'm certain these comments will soon be deleted, but to be honest, a third-grader could have turned in a better effort on this game report.
In fact, among those with actual knowledge of the industry, what is transpiring at the Advocate lately has become the butt of many jokes.
If the late Morris Roberts would still be with us, he'd be both infuriated and embarrassed this morning at what transpired and would not tolerate such poor job performance. And rest assured it's something that would not happen again.
September 4, 2010 at 12:34 p.m.
Getting a score backwards is something I can understand. Even misidentifying a player happens occasionally.
It's the story itself that seems offensive. A professional sportswriter would not write about "heading home with their tails between their legs" in any story, especailly one about high school athletes.
I hope this article is just some "first impression notes" that were published by accident before being fleshed out into an actual story.
September 4, 2010 at 3:16 p.m.
Where to start?
1. I can understand placing the score wrong. I'm sure it was received late on Friday night, and there was a rush to get it into the paper in time for distribution, so I can see that. A simple mistake--we all make them...but...
2. Whoever wrote the article has some kind of problem. I don't know if there was a bias, or if it was just somebody with some high school journalism experience (and judging from the writing, I'd guess they got a C at best), but out of all of the "blurbs" on the back page, this seemed to be the only one to give more than just the basic game facts. I didn't think that you needed to editorialize a short game synopsis, especially with the "tail tucked between their legs" crack.
3. I hope that in the Sunday paper, there will be a correction to this story, and an apology to the Shiner football team and players that had to read this mess first thing in the morning might be in order too. I notice that the Advocate crows a lot when they win awards for their journalism, and it gets front page treatment. How about the same responsibility when you get it wrong, too? (And in this case, you got it really wrong!!!)
4. After the correction, are you going to talk about how Brazos had a "horrible nightmare" of a game? I would suggest not, because let's remember, these are high school athletes and their parents. No matter what the score, they deserve respect for going out on the field and playing. It's not much fun to play with no chance to win, but you just can't quit. Piling on with such disrespectful comments in a "proud" newspaper is low class and unprofessional (and yes, I know that they got it wrong, but when it was written, it was with intent to disrespect student athletes).
I would hope that the Victoria Advocate staff has the testicular fortitude to admit they were wrong, and apologize to Shiner High School football players, their families, and their fans. I don't think you will make it right, but hey, prove me wrong!
September 4, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.
What is funny, is that I scanned the game box scores and statistics first. It was correct, Shiner 52, Brazos 0. After reading the comments here, I read the back page of the sports section, sure enough whoever wrote that little article got it exactly bass ackwards.
I give the VicAd a coveted OOPS award, for not only getting the score and statistics backwards, but also a Red Faced award for the opinions of whoever wrote the back page story that contradicts the game at a glance piece.
September 4, 2010 at 4:06 p.m.
It's still up & no staff has replied....seems the VA cares little about Shine.
September 4, 2010 at 4:20 p.m.
someone needs to volunteer as a proofreader maybe that might stop the gripes! enjoy the newspaper one day there might not be one anymore!
September 4, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
An updated, and correct, version of this story is now online. The Advocate sports department does not believe stories like this should be printed, and we're correcting our procedures to make sure it never happens again.
I would like to personally apologize to fans, players and anyone else who was offended by this story. We all take this very seriously, and we never want an error like this to make it to print.
I'll be contacting the team and school, as well, to apologize and let them know we respect the team and the community as much as any other we cover.
While this apology can't erase what's happened, I hope the steps we're taking to correct the story and the process, as well as our future coverage, can help mend some of the damage that's occurred.
sports editor, Victoria Advocate
September 4, 2010 at 4:34 p.m.
Also, we will be running a correction and a correct story in Sunday's paper.
September 4, 2010 at 4:46 p.m.
Shephen, you shine!
It could have been typed Chiner and we would have known who it was. pleeez.
September 5, 2010 at 11:07 a.m.
omg.. can the advocate mess up ANY more?? how can they screw it up so bad?
i had to laugh last week when i saw a half-page ad that said teachers could get the advocate for free to use in their classrooms..... FOR WHAT? an example of bad grammar, misspellings, and totally messed up articles??
September 5, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
As soon as I got to a place where I could pick up a Saturday print edition, I snagged one(in E-Clampo), thinking that surely what I saw online at 10AM, never made it to print......oops.
My hat's(freebie ball cap, actually)off to the sports editor for stepping forward here, and to those who printed a correction and apology which was in the driveway this morning. That was a giant step in acknowledging a recurring issue with the accuracy and integrity of the Advocate. I do stand by my earlier assertion as well, that if you guys spent an equal amount of time and effort proofreading (editoring) what goes into what is released as news, both online and in print, to the public, as you do riding herd on online comments that while technically within guidelines, that someone on staff took personal exception to, and deleting it, the result would be an all around better product. What do you do with similar handwritten letters to the editor? You can't delete or ban them, can you? Do you send their money back, and tell them their opinion is no longer welcome, and you are banning their subscription? I think not. Try to be a bit less heavy handed with your online community, and a bit more discerning with with what makes it to print on a daily basis, and I think you will hear a lot more attaboys and a lot less grumbling about the local paper.
September 5, 2010 at 9:12 p.m.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
September 6, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
ddherring - that last swipe was just a cold shot in the dark. The original account of what happened, had nobody's trademark on it, and I am sure whomever was responsible for the little fictious, and tastelessly embellished piece, has their butt in a sling and is on a short leash for the time being. Let it go at that.
The staff and powers that be, have more than recanted and tried to make ammends for it. Maybe it will be a wake-up call.
September 7, 2010 at 8:54 a.m.
Ah, that's more like it! Indeed, I think Sports Editor Stephen Herzog's apology was sufficient and to the point. Here's hoping the Advocate staff will do better in the future. No need to make personal or insulting remarks ... it's water under the bridge, I say!
One final suggestion ... how about somebody at the Advocate adding "Comanches" to their spell-checking program? That way, the first sentence of this 'corrected' article wouldn't read "The Shiner Comaches defeated Brazos ..." Wow.
Besides the Cuero Goblets, the China Shomachens are one of the top football programs in the Vitcorai Avodcate area. Let's try to get the speling rite netx time two!
September 7, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.
ShinerGuy, that was funny. Well, at least it was to me.
September 7, 2010 at 11:01 a.m.
I noticed this past Saturday morning that it said "Shine" but I didn't pay any attention to it. I knew what they were talking about.
It's an error people. Some of you act like you never make mistakes. This is nothing to cry over. It seems like the Victoria peeps are making a bigger deal out of it than the people from Shiner.
The next day, Sunday, September 5, 2010, a re-written article of the Shiner @ Brazos game appeared on-line and in the Sunday print edition of the Victoria Advocate. It included a brief apology from the Advocate Sports staff.
Here's Sunday's revised story with Editor's note ...
Shiner tops Brazos in shutout
Originally published September 4, 2010 at 10:48 p.m., updated September 4, 2010 at 10:48 p.m.
(Editor's note: This is the correct version of a story published in Saturday's paper. Saturday's story had both incorrect information and an inappropriate tone. The Advocate regrets the mistake.)
WALLIS - The Shiner Comanches got a convincing win over Brazos with a 52-0 victory on Friday.
Shiner scored early and often. The Comanches rushed for 357 yards as a team, including 113 from Marlon Wallace.
Wallace put the icing on the cake with a 75-yard touchdown run in the fourth quarter.
He was hardly the only runner to make a mark, however, as Evel Jones and Joey Gamez had 73 and 62 yards, respectively.
On the other side of the ball, the Comanche defense held Brazos to just 116 yards from scrimmage.
Shiner improved to 1-1 on the season and will take on Schulenburg next week. Schulenburg defeated St. Joseph on Friday to improve to 2-0.
story source: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/sep/04/shiner_correct_0904_109970/?sports&local-sports
statistics source: http://www.advosports.com/games/540/Bra Shi First Downs 7 20 Yards Rushing 41-77 37-357 Yards Passing 2 23 Passes 3-13 2-4 Punts 7-210 1-32 Fumbles-lost 3-1 4-2 Penalties-yards 4-30 4-20 SCORING SUMMARY: 1 2 3 4 -- Final Shiner 14 6 14 18 -- 52 Brazos 0 0 0 0 -- 0 SCORING DETAILS: First Quarter S - 8:42 Marlon Wallace 4yd run (point after failed) S - 0:31 Evel Jones 2yd run (2pt conversion) Second Quarter S - 7:28 Brady Beal 17yd pass from Wesley Patek (point after failed) Third Quarter S - 8:45 Wallace 12 yd run (Lucian Blaschke kicked point after) S - 0:16 Zach Lawrence 3 yard run. (Blaschke kicked point after) Fourth Quarter S - 9:01 Wallace 75 yard run (pt after failed) S - 6:04 Lawrence 38 yd run. (pt after failed) S - 1:19 Caleb Curtis 2 yd run (kick failed) INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS: Rushing Brazos, C. Edwards 22-48, D. Alabi-Isama 11-33. Shiner, E. Jones 6-72, C. Curtis 4-36, Z. Lawrence 4-27, M. Wallace 13-111. Passing Brazos, C. Edwards 22-50, K. Kolafa 12-3-39-2. Shiner, E. Jones 7-73, J. Gamez 5-62, W. Patek 4-2-23, Z. Lawrence 3-46, M. Wallace 13-113. Receiving Brazos, J. Flagg 2-25, D. Alabi-Isama 1-14. Shiner, B. Beal 2-23.