Murray Chass' grudge against the NYTimes knows no limits

yeah, so? i don't disagree with murray's complaints. others do. i also happen to not be a fan of blogs; they're too often mistaken for journalism. i don't give a hoot about murray's blogs; i'm just defending his right to vent about whatever he'd like. and i did not disagree with any of his points, lest one escaped me.

yup, i'm a complicated person full of grey areas. i'm just failing to see what point bitter ol' murray made that folks found offensive here.

 

Who is challenging his right to vent?

Who said his posts were "offensive?"

You're throwing around words like "offensive" and "outrage," which exist in your imagination on this topic.

It's a discussion topic on the journalism board, that's all. I posted it because I thought it might be instructive for many of us in these ways:

1. If you leave a place of employment under circumstances that might be unfair, don't presume that anyone else cares about it as much as you do.

2. Feel free to reject new ideas and theories, but be prepared to explain why you do. If you reject them without cause, you come across as a fussy old obstructionist.

 

your thread starter took murray to ask for venting about the times. to me that came off as a "challenge" to his right to vent. like i've said, ,y OPINION is that the majority of murray's blog readers were fans of his work at the times and, as such, likely remain times readers. so i don't believe it's a stretch to think his "bitter, old" vents about the times are reaching a "who the eff cares?" audience.

either way, it's HIS blog. i just don't agree that murray deserves to be jumped for anything he puts on there. that's all. no need to get your shorts bunched up.

 

Doesn't excuse his bitterness in this case, his rants at Jolly and the rest.
Two words:
Retire.
Gracefully.
How old was Murray when he was forced out -- 67, 68? Most of us of a certain age are hoping we still have jobs in the industry when we get to 57 or 58. You have no reason to be bitter if you're past 65 and they decide it's time. If you're 35 or 45 and they push you out, it's a totally different deal.

 

I have no problem with rants at the Times, generally, and Jolly, specifically. They've destroyed an institution and a once-great section.

 

It was never a great section.
Neil Amdur made it a better section than it had been, but it was never great.
And there isn't a paper in America that's as good now as it was 10-15 years ago. Jolly is trying to incorporate new ideas into his section. He's not defacing the Mona Lisa.

 

Right, they've just replaced their fountain pens with crayons.

 

rip away at jolley all you want. murray? he's a bitter ass at this point, and he's making it obvious to everyone and that's his right. knock yourself out, murr....
but the times' sports section? destroyed?
the last two weeks, they simply OWNED the u.s. open. day-in, day-out, great stuff, new, inventive entry pieces into an event that is so easy to go through the motions on. liz robbins, zinzer, waldstein, clarey, vecsey and branch kicked ass.
and no, i'm not a timesperson.
just one of the guys' whose asses they kicked.

 

We're venturing far afield from the subject of whether Murray Chass' bitterness is embarrassing to him and everyone who reads him. But then, it's pretty well settled, so...

The New York Times doing a bang-up job on a tennis tournament -- even the U.S. Open -- does not, in and of itself, make the New York Times a great sports section. Or even a relevant sports section.

 

Amen - When they start covering MLS on a daily basis we'll know they have arrived as a big time sports paper.

 

coverage of a major event doesn't tell you anything about a section? tell that to every sports editor over the last three decades who panted after prizes for its special sections/expanded coverage of super bowls/world series/etc. but maybe you're right. all i know is what i saw and read. and let be up front on this: there's so much i don't like about the times -- from its op-ed predictibility to its decade-long history of screw-ups that, more than any paper, set back the reputation of journalists to its lame-ass attempts to set the cultural agenda -- and i'm the first to say it's NOT the best paper in the country.

but all i know is that i saw the operation up close, in a highly-competitive environment with its new york brethren, network tv, bloggers and magazine types all working the same beat. all i read was one sparkling story, revealing some seriously on-the-toes thinking, day after day. that tells me that, given some rope, their writers -- not columnists, but writers and reporters -- can compete with any in that city, or this country.

 

Long live Murray Chass!