New York Times makes a hire

the point of the coversation went over your head, chief. did you even bother looking up to see it sail by?

 

word

pretty shocking how you guys react to one of our brothers getting a better job

they're all pissed when people lose their jobs & now they're pissed when people get jobs too

 

One question, did Abrams come from a family with money where connections got him solid internships to get the L.A. Times gig at such a young age?

 

Abrams was part of the old Student Journalism Program, which ended in 2005, and was tabbed as an intern before becoming a Metro reporter...

 

I don't know if Abrams has any family connections or whatnot, but that's irrelevant. Once you have an opportunity, you still have to use it to its fullest. You still have to distinguish yourself.

Jonathan has done so.

But the fact remains that 25-year-olds to the biggest papers used to be the exception, not the rule. If on one thread we bemoan the loss of "institutional knowledge" that results from laying off experienced reporters, then we must acknowledge that the NY Times hiring a 25-year-old to cover the NBA is an admission that they do not hold such institutional knowledge in high regard.

Despite the braying of the emboldened 20-somethings in the last few posts on this thread.

One of the things I love about this business is the mentoring aspect, "old guys helping the young guys" (yes, ladies too). At my (few) stops, I have always tried to latch onto a veteran whose views I respect, since I'm a sucker for "war" stories and tales of "This particular story is why we have certain rules now," as my current position has happliy helped me to hear about.

At my previous stop, the Dodger geeks among us would beg our former Dodgers beat guy, who covered the team through the end of Alston's and all of Lasorda's tenure, to regale us with tales. Whenever I'm in a soccer press box with certain people, I always ask about the old days of covering the sport, the famous Mission Viejo residency camp, the collegians with no chance playing in Italy in 1990, etc.

These conversations give depth to stories which, while reading them as a youngster, inspired me to become a sports journalist. They give depth to the profession itself, as they can illustrate how to stay cool under pressure and handle oneself in unpredictable situations. And they enrich those of us just beginning in the business, and hopefully inspire us to try to take the next generation under our wing as well.

Jonathan Abrams is a high-quality kid. I greatly enjoyed the times I covered events like X-Games and MLS in the same press box as him. His work ethic, and work, merit a position at the New York Times. It is not his individual opportunity that gives 30-somethings like me pause. It is the fact that the NY Times hiring a youngster to cover the NBA will raise few eyebrows. It is the fact, stated earlier, that the ladder people my age aspired to climb is long gone.

And it is the fact that even a super youngster hired at the LA or NY Times probably shouldn't get too comfortable in today's day and age. If said youngster further distinguishes him or her self, then ESPN is calling. If the youngster likes where he or she has landed . . . . don't let that salary get too high, or the hammer will find you as well.

Yes, that's shitty, but I admit I'm a little perturbed at the "You go!!!" sentiment after floridanewbie31's almost-gloating post. It's strange: our career paths are now similar in some ways to the athletes we cover. The thing young people have to remember is that they inevitably will reach a point when they are no longer up and coming, and there will be a new youngster ready to take their place, for a lower price.

 

Well put, PR.

 

Very well said, though we're on different sides of the argument.

I believe that each case much be viewed on an individual basis. If the Times were mass-hiring 23-year-olds , I'd agree that the alarms should go off. But this is one hire, just like Babb is one hire in KC and Kider is one hire in N.O.l

 

I think I should clarify that I'm not looking at sports in a vaccum - I think the NY Times and papers in its tier hires a lot more 23-year-olds than you think when we're including the NY Times as a whole, not just sports.

 

This is a great, great post. Very well said, Piotr.

And not to pick nits or fights, but some of you here miss the point. Nobody's bad-mouthing Jonathan. A nicer, classier guy you won't find, and anyone getting hired in this day and age of papers commiting hara-kiri in front of the world is a good thing.

We're bad-mouthing the process that changed the rules on a generation-plus of journalists who were bred on the concept of working your way up and learning which end of the crayon is up. Journalists in their 30s should not be discounted or cast aside as past their prime.

That's wrong. Period. And this fortysomething who got out of the biz six years ago isn't going to apologize for feeling that way.

And, in this case, I'm bad-mouthing the process that ignores someone like Mike Bresnahan, who -- frankly -- is a more polished reporter and writer.

 

How is Bresnahan being ignored? He's already at the Times, and does incredible work. One of the best guys in the business. How much higher can he ascend?

And also, how are the rules being changed? We're talking about a select group of outstanding young writers and reporters, who worked their asses off and just so happen to be better than most writers at any age.

I wouldn't consider journalists in their 30s being past their prime — I'd consider them flocking to ESPN.com and Yahoo and Sports Illustrated as a sign that there just might be bigger and better things than newspapers.

 

Piotr,

my post wasn't anywhere near gloating. It was a simple congrats to a dude that's talented at what he does. His hiring at the New York Times doesn't signify a trend of sorts. Nor should 30-somethings be go hand wringing just because a younger journalist got a plum gig in a plum city at a plum newspaper.

Rather my post was what it was for face value. I'm happy because rather than reading yet another thread on someone laying off, there was some good news for a change. And I think that we, if anyone simply because of how hard we've been hit in this industry in recent months, should embrace one of our own being able to better his career. Instead, it was highly disappointing to read the comments. Rather than congrats, it was "we'
re doomed, the younger generation is taking our jobs."

It's not like Jon went from college straight to the Times. And it's not like he's got the Knicks beat to himself, although I don't know his setup.

Jon has covered the Clippers, and he's put in work. If the NYT sees fit to hire him, who the hell are we to judge. I just think a lot of the posts I read in this thread came off as pure jealousy. And that's disappointing.

 

I'm merely surprised they hired someone with one year of sports experience, let alone NBA experience. I know they interviewed at least two people with five or more years of NBA experience for this position.