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!

J.R. Moehringer on Mark Sanchez

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dick Whitman, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Has anyone else read the GQ cover story yet?


    Pretty pedestrian stuff for Moehringer - although he has set the bar so, so high. I got the feeling that Sanchez wasn't a very interesting subject. I guess the Broadway musical love was a bit of a surprise. Basically, the story is about what a low-maintenance guy Sanchez is. It mentions the dalliance with a 17-year-old last year very, very briefly, and doesn't touch the USC sexual assault allegation with a 10-foot pole (although, at this point, it probably shouldn't).

    I guess the brief blow-up over the throwaway, "I wanted to fight him" line regarding Rex Ryan tells you all you need to know about the NY market's lust for controversy, because otherwise Sanchez seemed like a very milquetoast guy. I bet he frustrated Moehringer somewhat as a subject.

    Oh, one nit. At one point, Moehringer mentions that Sanchez is a lady killer because of his "green eyes." Every photo in the magazine, including the cover, indicates that he clearly has brown eyes.
  2. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member


    I'm partially color blind and often confuse light brown eyes with green eyes. Color comparisons would tell me these were hazelish, but if I was with him in person, I might think green.

    Still, not all copy editors are color blind.
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    But if you stare into his eyes too long you melt while taking your pants off, so nobody could look at the proofs.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page