1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask Tom Jolly

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Dec 5, 2008.

  1. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Is this Scott Newman?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  2. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    It's a shame you keep thumping this drum when it simply isn't true.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Perhaps for you since you seem to prefer Lifetime channel style football coverage, but for the majority it was a disaster.

    Again if it was so great why did the Times pull her off the beat?

    BTW - this was not just my opinion. You may recall that some of the finest football writers of our time weighed in with the same opinion.
     
  4. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    Ben, it's not the deep pockets, it's the Times going for reporters of modest experience. You telling me the Times can't find top-notch people in their 30s, who might be a little more committed to newspaper traditions and might view a job there more as a brass ring than a stepping stone? If the Times is hiring people 2-3 years out of college, then the quality of journalism overall is at an all-time low and any notion of a farm system -- earning a shot, making mistakes in the minors -- is history. Just another disincentive for people to pay dues or consider a future in this industry.

    I guess I don't understand the Times' urge to "discover" stars, when it can simply wait a few years, see if they're still good and pluck them then from secondary markets. It was that thinking, fundamentally, that led to the Jayson Blair fiasco.
     
  5. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    The Times did not "pull her off the beat" and no matter how many times you say that, it doesn't make it so. Karen is an incredibly talented feature writer, and she is also one of the Times most essential and indispensable Olympic writers. Wouldn't have made much sense for her to continue to focus on the Jets when she had to produce an enormous amount of copy about the Olympics.

    She's essentially a national NFL person now and a GA. I'm always curious as to exactly how much you understand our business Boom, but let me point out that if you're a creative person, it's a lot more fun to be a GA than it is strictly a beat person. And those positions are usually more coveted. So your suggestion that she was somehow demoted shows a serious misunderstanding of the way life in a newsroom works.
     
  6. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Have no understanding of the workings of your business other that what 21 shares with me or what I have gleaned here at sj.

    I do understand the difference between good and bad sports writing from over 40 years of reading .

    Agree that Karen is a fine writer - but not for a Pro football beat.
     
  7. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Again, it depends on the audience.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    But why would you cover the Jets one way and The Giants another. It's not two different audiences.
     
  9. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Continue to maintain that if Howell Raines isn't there, Jayson Blair (specifically), doesn't happen . . .
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Boom, A lot of that "Lifetime Network" and "Oprah" stuff was coming from other writers on the beat. In the NY market on a major beat like the Jets, if the other writers are taking shots at you, there are better than even odds you are doing something right, not wrong, such as beating them and making them look bad (for example, the Lavernues Coles story) or not following the pack and reporting the same rumors and coachspeak everyone else is printing. It's OK if you weren't a fan of Karen Crouse, opinions vary, but she did something different with that beat that shouldn't have annoyed anyone too much, because if you didn't like it, there were a dozen other places to get the same "Mangini is going to run the 3-4!" stories. Referring to anything Karen Crouse wrote on that beat as a "disaster" is just ridiculous, though. The Times gave her an empty canvas with which to try something different and she did really good work with it. She was about as much of a disaster as Frank DeFord is a disaster when he writes about athletes as people rather than pass-rushing robots who fit into a scheme. The Daily News or the Post couldn't do what she was allowed to do with a beat because of its readership, but the Times could and she did some interesting reporting. I don't know the circumstances with which she was given GA work, but she killed on her Olympics coverage and feature-writing is where half the beat writers who took shots at her would like to be (the other half wouldn't be able to do a good job off of a beat).
     
  11. When did this become the "Ask Boom" thread?
     
  12. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Let's ask Tom Jolly.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page