New York Times makes a hire

I just thought there used to be this idea that you worked your way up in circulation size before landing jobs at the LA Times and NY Times.
And yes, I do think experience is a plus. It's not the only factor, but it certainly should be one.

 

I know of many head coaches and managers who go by the saying, 'if you're good enough, you're old enough.'

I'd like to think that applies to all positions in life.

 

Trust me Billy: I completely agree with you. I was being sarcastic. Sorry if it didn't translate.

 

Thanks for checking in, Jonathan.

 

No need to apologize. It was my thin skin that made me overlook your sarcasm.

 

Jonathan is a good guy. And he toiled in news in Rivertucky (I believe) - albeit briefly - which to me earns any youngster plenty of stripes.

Good luck to him at the (other) Times.

And that shot at the LA Times is richly deserved, especially from exactly the type of young journalist a newspaper like that should be bending over backwards to retain.

 

No, GB, it doesn't. Not from where I sit. In athletics, maybe. But in a classroom? No. In a surgical arena? Nope. In a big-time corporate negotiation? No way. Same with a newsroom.

The Times is telling readers that it no longer will be getting the accumulated knowledge, expertise and sources that someone like Murray Chass brought to coverage of major league baseball. Meanwhile, it is telling the readers that its Knicks/NBA coverage will be handled, at least in part, by someone with a few years of professional experience. Someone who was possibly in junior high when the Knicks last made it to the NBA Finals.

I find such a media outlet less interesting and worthwhile. I find such a newspaper -- when it is purported to be the authority on so many subjects -- to be fraudulent. (Jealous? Nah, I don't think so -- I never thought about working in New York and never wanted to ... until my place really started going downhill about three years ago! And this is nothing against Jonathan in particular.)

I don't know when the magic threshold of talent PLUS experience is crossed in a journalist's career. Maybe it's eight years, maybe it's a dozen years, maybe it's longer. But I do know that it isn't at age 24, not to have reached the pinnacle of your profession when that profession benefits from cumulative knowledge and exposure to myriad situations.

And if the NY Times still was the ultimate destination for the best journalists, it wouldn't worry about someone good getting away. It would be able to hire the dynamite 35-year-olds or (gasp!) 40-year-olds after they actually have kicked some ass and proven themselves over time in the lower leagues.

These sorts of tender hires seem to make the folks who hire them feel good. Maybe they are great hunting dogs for the editors who sit on their duffs, point them in the direction of a story and say, "Go!" I just think they'd be a more interesting, compelling paper rounding up savvy veteran people and tapping into their wealth of experience.

I've said it before: I think it's a fallacy that the coveted young readers want to read young reporters and writers or see the photos of young shooters. I think young and old readers want to know what the insiders know, and someone with 20 years of experience, to me, is a hell of a lot more likely to be an insider than someone with three or four years of experience. Better yet, just wait another five years and then hire the same effin' stud.

 

Well said Joe, as usual.

 

Who says they're hiring him because they think he'll attract young readers?

Why can't they be hiring him, as the LA Times did before them, because he's an excellent young writer who knows how to work a beat? If they know he's the guy they want, why should they wait another five years to make the deal?

 

joe, you are money.

 

Let's be honest, in journalism these days 24 is the new 33. And like the NBA, he's got a lot of upside but not enough of a track record to expose any weaknesses.

 

And let's be real, real honest and concede that that's one of the big problems in the industry. Two months from now they'll give the young man a column and maybe we'll have another Selena Roberts on our hands -- someone who can write well but has nothing to say. The Times has lost a lot of stature in the last 4-5 years.

This is not to pass judgement on Abrams. I don't know Him and he's probably extremely talented. Just a comment on the state of the industry.