The Star, you might have noticed, has embarked this week on something the paper has never done before, to the best of my knowledge — run a series of stories on the Web site before running the entire series in print.
The series is called “Becoming George Brett,” and it commemorates the 40th anniversary of Brett’s first game as a Royal.
I like the way The Star has done this, and the stories are terrific. Obviously, The Star is dispensing the series this way to entice people to sign up for digital subscriptions. That’s where the future appears to lie for major metropolitan dailies, and Star editors know that there’s no more enticing product than K.C.’s No. 1 sports figure. (Golfer Tom Watson would be No. 2, of course.)
The series is not an unequivocal home run, however, in my opinion. There are pluses and minuses.
Some of the pluses:
:: The first segment, which ran in print on Monday as well as online, was authored by sports columnist Sam Mellinger, who got a considerable amount of Brett’s time, including a walk with the former star and his dogs. (Along the way, a woman walker recognized Brett and gushed, “Love those Royals. Thank you, George!”)
Mellinger
Mellinger did an excellent job of blending the present with the past — how, when Brett was called up from Omaha, he thought a player with whom he was grilling hamburgers was being called up.
:: Lots of photographs and video pieces, including interviews with Brett, augment the stories.
Minuses:
:: To me, the flip-flopping between print and online is a bit confusing. The series promo box, which runs every day, has said from the outset that the series can be seen on kansascity.com. And yet Monday’s kick-off piece ran in print and online, but the Tuesday through Friday stories apparently are running online only.
:: The stories are not assembled coherently and in order on the Web site. Every entry, whether it’s photos or text, is under the “Becoming George Brett” banner, so you have to poke around to find the main stories. They should be assembled as Part I, Part II, Part III, etc…Surely The Star can fix that by tomorrow. Get on it, you computer nerds!
What with this being The Star’s first big series to be tailored so prominently for the Web, it’s not surprising that a few glitches crept in. Overall, though, it’s a thorough and well-packaged series. The readers should be eating it up.
***
While we’re talking baseball, here are a couple of other quick observations.
:: Royals’ TV broadcaster Ryan Lefebvre turned a crafty phrase near the end of Sunday’s game against the White Sox, which the Royals won 4-2. In the bottom of the seventh inning, Royals’ reliever Luke Hochevar struck out White Sox catcher Tyler Flowers to end the inning.
Lefebvre
As Strike Three was called, Lefebvre said, “He (Hochevar) just carved up Flowers — one petal at a time.”
His poor partner, commentator Rex Hudler, didn’t chuckle or say a word. Heads up, Rex!
:: On their Web site, the Royals are promoting a new wrinkle — GordoNation.
The promo says that Royals All-Star outfielder Alex Gordon is looking for fans to join a new seating section in left field.
The promo sets the hook with a simple challenge: “Do you have what it takes to be a part of GordoNation?”
Of course, I do…Count me in!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Fitz.
“Computer Nerds?” Like the “Nerds” at WordPress.com that take your brilliance and use their software and provide access to this shiny blog?
The Star’s “Nerds” were following instructions from others at the Star lacking the technical background. I am kidding about the “Nerd” comments, not the blog’s quality, the crack reporter you are and the astounding observations you share.
Once the Editorial Department gains consistency, they will handle a lot of their best writing and series on the Internet (the www machine Fitz…lol). They will have to keep what we have adjusted to as The Star as is…for now.
I think it would be an aggressive and wise move to gradually, but not at too slow of a pace, expand their use of the Internet.
But I do not feel the readers of a daily newspaper in this market will pay this type of content on the Internet link at an extra cost. After time goes, by policies on pricing can change.
And, of course, no offense, but some of what is confusing to some are not obstacles to those who live in a Facebook and Twitter world.
We do not have to write to a reader with the sixth-grade education – like we were told in the newsroom – any longer.
It is fair to type, most adults with a grade-school education level – this will not be an issue. And they are not reading a series of an MLB Hall of Fame player on the internet. Or from their front lawn.
You’re right, Larry…I chose the wrong target when I blamed the computer nerds. It’s somebody higher up the chain who organizes and displays the material. WHO THE HELL IS IT? Somebody needs to launch an investigation…
Larry…I’m ashamed of you. I was never, ever told to write as if readers had sixth-grade educations. I think that’s the biggest fallacy about journalism. I’ve never heard any other reporter say he or she was told that, either. Absolute nonsense. You’re just following the lemmings over the cliff on that one.
Heads up, buddy!
That “one petal at a time” comment, had to have sat in the garage for a while. That doesn’t take anything away from it, cause it’s money as hell, but he (Lefebvre) had that thing holstered for a while in my opinion.
Now that I am thinking about it, I guess if he is trying to do his job with a little verve and elan, he oughta have quips for any number of situations at the ready.
Now that I am thinking about that, I have never met an announcer for anything in my life. Fitz, you must know someone…
Did Cosell come up with, “Look at that little monkey go!” right outta whole cloth?
Royals above 500 after the All Star Break?
Just checked my pulse, no change, going to bed.
We’re going for eight in a row and you’re going to bed, Chuck?!?!
The Royals lead 4-3 after eight innings at this writing. If I knew your number I’d call and wake you up!
YES!
:)
Jim, a Brett series this thorough (as I’m being led to believe) by all rights should include the scene where George walks on water.
Now, Rick, your distaste for elevating sports and sports stars to ethereal levels levels is well know, but you gotta indulge us when it comes to George…He’s right up there with Zeus!
Rick is right. If I didn’t gamble on sports I wouldn’t watch.
The apotheosis of athletes in this country has reached pathological levels. Gang Bangers are buying Aaron Hernandez jerseys on line for 1K. People get killed regularly for their $300 tennis shoes.
Ty Cobb was a jerk, Mickey drank too much, everyone is on PEDs, our kids need to look up to their fathers (if they have them.)
I will let ya go with this.
Remember that one time, when that basketball player ran really fast down the court and jumped in the air with the ball and shot it into the basket? Wow! Remember that?
I do remember that…Why, it was Britney Griner!
Sam’s column in the dead tree version of the Star stated Brett had raised 4 kids in KC. Surely, with all the fawning and giddyness the Star has given Brett over the past 40 years someone would have caught that egregious error. No mention of his admission in Playboy many years ago that he wasn’t gay because “he had the checkbook to prove it”. Looking back at pro-choice George might have given the reader a chuckle, no?
I haven’t read the whole series, nor will I, it’s just that when you leave out the negative/shows him in a bad light stuff it makes for dishonest journalism. Brett was a great ballplayer. Period. I don’t think he has always been a great person.
Shame the Star doesn’t give Frank White the same courtesy.
You know, Jennifer, that looked odd (four children) when I read it, but I thought, what the hell, maybe it is four.
I checked it out after reading your comment, and, of course, you are exactly right: He has three children. And, yes, that is an EGREGIOUS error. Makes Sam look like a fool. If he didn’t know, he should have CHECKED. An editor should have caught that, too. They probably just let his copy go on through, for the most part, without much review.
In its usual fashion, The Star has corrected the error online — in the body of the electronic version of the story — but without acknowledging at the bottom of the story that a correction was made. That’s one of the things I really dislike about The Star — the failure to own up to their online errors. The mistakes magically get corrected like they never occurred.
This morning I sent sports editor Jeff Rosen an e-mail, asking if the error was corrected in the print version. He said it was.