B Questions about other influences on professional judgment could include: 1. Regarding professional standards, how did Dohrmann arrive at his approach to his sources? What principles did Garcia-Ruiz apply to the question of sourcing? What level of sourcing would you say is required for this story? Would the requirement differ if the subject were, say, politics, instead of sports? should public attitudes affect the level of proof required? Did public attitudes affect the level of proof required in this story? What specific skills and principles did each of the central actors-the reporter, the sports editor and the supervisory editors-bring to the story? What were the risks to the paper in running it? Would you have hand led the story the way lundy did, if you ere executive editor? 2. Regarding competition, what were some of the effects of the newspaper rivalry on the early reporting? What was the effect in the end, as to when the s tory was published? Did more good, or more harm come from journalistic competition? 3. Regarding the im pact of previous experience, how did the UCLA story affect Dohmann and Garcia-Ruiz? In what ways did it strengthen the story In what ways did it make them behave questionably Did the fact that the two of them had come recently to the Twin Cities make them better equipped to do this story? Did the ir lack of connection hurt the paper in any way? What about Vicki Gowler's previous experience with tim ing? Case Analysis A. Public's Right to Know Tim ing turned out to be amost everything in ths story -or so it seemed on publication day. Consider the fact that after a huge upset loss for the vikings in the NFC championship game, plus a long and dreary NBa strike, Minnesotans were longing for success. Now at last the Go phe rs-the only big-time college team in the state-were slated the following day to play their first-round NCaa tournament game against Gonzaga. Minnesota's hopes were riveted on them. No wonder, it seemed to many afterward that the public res ponse was so hugely negative In considering the choices the staff made, it's m portant to remember that they acted without knowledge that those of us reading the case now have No one had any idea, for exam ple at the beginning of the reporting how big the story would turn out to be And no one knew until the pairings were announced the Sunday night before the Wednesday publication that Minnesota was going to the tournamentB. Questions about other influences on professional judgment could include: 1. Regarding professional standards, how did Dohrmann arrive at his approach to his sources? What principles did Garcia-Ruiz apply to the question of sourcing? What level of sourcing would you say is required for this story? Would the requirement differ if the subject were, say, politics, instead of sports? Should public attitudes affect the level of proof required? Did public attitudes affect the level of proof required in this story? What specific skills and principles did each of the central actors—the reporter, the sports editor and the supervisory editors—bring to the story? What were the risks to the paper in running it? Would you have handled the story the way Lundy did, if you were executive editor? 2. Regarding competition, what were some of the effects of the newspaper rivalry on the early reporting? What was the effect in the end, as to when the s tory was published? Did more good, or more harm , come from journalistic competition? 3. Regarding the impact of previous experience, how did the UCLA story affect Dohrmann and Garcia-Ruiz? In what ways did it strengthen the story? In what ways did it make them behave questionably? Did the fact that the two of them had come recently to the Twin Cities make them better equipped to do this story? Did their lack of connection hurt the paper in any way? What about Vicki Gowler's previous experience with timing? Case Analysis A. Public's Right to Know Timing turned out to be almost everything in this story—or so it seemed on publication day. Consider the fact that, after a huge upset loss for the Vikings in the NFC championship game, plus a long and dreary NBA strike, Minnesotans were longing for success. Now, at last, the Gophers—the only big-time college team in the state—were slated the following day to play their first-round NCAA tournament game against Gonzaga. Minnesota's hopes were riveted on them . No wonder, it seemed to many afterward, that the public response was so hugely negative. In considering the choices the staff made, it's important to remember that they acted without knowledge that those of us reading the case now have. No one had any idea, for example, at the beginning of the reporting, how big the story would turn out to be. And no one knew until the pairings were announced the Sunday night before the Wednesday publication that Minnesota was going to the tournament