The headline titled, "Recruiting coach redeemed,"made me think the story was about a good deed made by a coach after committing an offense against the university's athletic association. However the lead, "After Rodney Garner helped Georgia sign 18 new players, he still needed to recruit one more to his side-his wife," shattered my initial preconceptions. The statement that followed left me a little perplexed as well, saying, "Previously committed [for life], Garner's wife Kim might have been having second thoughts and looking for other offers after last year's signing day press conference." The sentence confused me; I didn't know whether or not Kim was also a recruiting coach committed for life to the university and was looking for offers elsewhere or if the writer was simply trying to make a witty comment about Kim's search for another husband. The sentences that followed clarified that his wife was upset due to a statement Garner made at a press conference last year: "It's probably like when you sit back and look at your wife and over time you wonder if you had held out then you could have gotten that one over there." The author then discussed Garner's current relationship with his wife.
But by the sixth paragraph down, the author drifted away from Garner's status with his wife and changed the topic to Garner's role in picking 18 top recruits for the Georgia football team. I figured that the author's intended message about football recruits was hidden by an off-topic introduction. I thought the headline, "Recruiting coach redeemed" was starting to make a little sense; Garner recruited 18 great players after what must have been unsuccessful season luring players last year.
However, I was confused again by the change in topic in the 10th paragraph. The author began to talk about Garner's recent decision to stay with the University of Georgia after a slew of enticing offers from other universities. I thought this angle must be what the headline what about; after almost betraying UGA, Garner not only decided to stay, but also found 18 great recruits.
But my reasoning proved incorrect when the author introduced a quote by Garner that stated he never once intended to leave UGA and that he believed working with the university "has been an honor" and that his "family has been here for 11 years...and [they] have roots [ with the university]."
The author's last few statements, "For at least 18 young young men, it appears Garner's recruiting strategy has worked. But for his wife? That remains to be seen. 'I was in the doghouse for 365 days for sure,' he said. 'And I don't know if I'm out yet either,'" proved to me that the author wanted to make a football-recruiting story interesting by adding a sub-story about Garner's relationship with his wife. I think the writer could have done this, but in a way that wouldn't have misled readers. He could have said, "Rodney Garner had redeemed himself with the University by recruiting 18 new players and turning down several enticing offers from other universities, but is still in the 'dog' house with his wife after a foolish statement he made at last year's recruiting conference." He could have then followed with the actual quote and then said something like, "Luckily for Garner, he had a better way at wooing future players than women." That way, readers would understand that the headline about redemption was about his decision to stay with UGA and recruiting players, not mending his relationship with his wife. Even more, the writer would capture the reader's attention with an interesting lead, but stay true to his original purpose.
Robyn,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very thorough critique, and you make a good point about focus: Very often, the more focused the story is, the more deeply it pursues a single angle, the stronger it will be.
However, I find the story to be more successful than you do. It's true that people who aren't close followers of Gardner's marriage might not immediately understand the lead, but the sentence is clear, telegraphs the themes of the story and raises enough questions to entice most readers to the second paragraph.
That graph starts with a grammatically correct modifier, not a dangler. The possessive makes it potentially confusing, but the structure leaves no doubt that "Previously committed [for life]" refers to Garner's wife, Kim. Also, because Garner's wife was the last noun referred to in the preceding sentence, the reader is set up to expect the modifier to refer to her -- or at least to not be surprised.
From there, I thought the story flowed reasonably well, though it did meander from topic to topic. I think your instinct is correct that the reporter was trying to add a little flair to a routine story by getting into Garner's personal life and career issues a little.
I'm glad you took the time to give this story such a close reading; it's an example of how two editors can have different reactions to the same story.
Perry