Misrepresentations in the Post article

ater31337 <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:26:53 -0000

You know, I hate to always be one of "those guys" who always has
something critical to say, but while I thought it was fun to hear
about the experiences of Jennings, Hilleman, etc and the history of
NAQT, I thought the article portrayed a very skewed and one-sided
picture of the circuit.

For instance, take the following quote:

"Part of the price of admission to the quiz bowl tournaments of their
youth was for each team to contribute a packet of roughly 100 clever
questions. Nowadays, companies known as "question vendors" sell such
packets to tournaments and trivia contests, with retired packets
purchased by teams for practice."

Last I checked, NAQT only produces 2 college tournament sets a year
(SCT and ICT).  Yet, in terms of packet submission, we have 3
tournaments a year from ACF (which are submission, even if ACF
qualifies as a vendor), in addition to a good deal of established
circuit tournaments, including but not limited to, Illinois Open, MLK,
Buzzerfest, Terrapin, Cornell's tournament, WIT, QOTC, and numerous
others.  I'm curious as to why the Washington Post wasn't informed of
this fact or did not at least do the minimal investigation to account
for the fact that packet submission tournaments still remain the norm
of the circuit.  I think this discrepancy is important because it
undermines the existence of the packet submission culture by writing
it off completely as a relic of the past.

I was also disappointed in the characterization of NAQT/game show
critics as "jealous" and "dismayed by [their] success."  I don't think
anyone on either side of the debate ever expressed anything but praise
for the accomplishments of Olmstead, Jennings, et al and their ability
to popularize the game.  However, I wasn't aware that preferring
packet submission tournaments to pre-written ones, preferring longer
and more pyramidal questions to short speed-based ones, and preferring
academic content without heavy overlap from general knowledge or pop
culture somehow translates to "I hate NAQT because I'm jealous."  Come
on guys, there's a legitimate debate here, and both sides at least
deserve their arguments to be given some creedence.  I'm disappointed
that nobody interviewed was willing to acknowledge that there is a
valid controversy over question-writing format/style and the purpose
of the game, and instead seemed to use the Post as a bully pulpit to
misrepresent the other side.

That said, I thought the article provided a good insight into NAQT and
its members/culture/history, but a poor overall look at how the game
and the circuit actually exist.  It's interesting to see quiz bowl
discusses in the mainstream press, but unfortunate that the press
could not be bothered to provide an objective and balanced picture.