New York Times sports reporting

People in NY area love the US open, that's probably part of it. If the open wasn't in flushing, maybe the call for coverage would be a lot less

 

One thing that struck me: Four writers assigned to local teams. Just trying to crush the numbers amid two teams in MLB, NFL and the NBA and three in the NHL. Throw the two MLS and the WNBA in too, and something's not adding up.

 

MLS and WNBA. LOL.

 

I started to roll my eyes when I started reading what the public editor wrote....

Then I must admit I clicked the link about the Marquette team eating veggie wraps.

Maybe it's a good strategy for today. Why not.

 

It's a different approach that can work for a paper like the New York Times, which is unique in the newspaper world. After all, you could make an argument that the New York Times isn't really a New York paper anymore. It's a national and global paper, not a local one. The Public Editor's article even mentioned that something like 30 or 40 percent of the Times' audience comes from outside New York.
So, in terms of sports, it probably doesn't make sense to do regular beat coverage of local teams. The approach they're taking sounds a lot like what Sports Illustrated used to be, with interesting offbeat features and a very wide scope of coverage. It helps that the New York Times has a brand name that instantly opens doors for access, and the resources to invest in these types of projects.

That can work for the New York Times. Good for them for finding their unique niche in the marketplace and taking advantage of it.
The scary prospect is when editors and publishers at papers with a far more local audience see it and want to emulate it on a local level, with far fewer resources and a much smaller staff. There's already people in the industry who honestly wouldn't care if they never ran another actual game story or score in their sports section. All that does, though, is drive away your established core audience in the hopes of attracting a new one, and that rarely seems to end well in the long term in any business.

 

Oh, I dunno that many publishers ever would, or frankly many editors, especially those who don't have space for 2,000-word stories on picayune topics.

It's the writers. One of the flaws of the industry - and it long has been - is that the way to better jobs, awards, prestige among writers, to becoming a columnist, is to cast off any daily responsibility and go all-in on features and/or ruminating essays that become "great clips." Those awards become a kind of currency.

 

As a devoted New York Times subscriber I have always found the sports section to be a disappointment. They cover obscure things like the tennis and soccer largely because I think they believe their audience really does not like the most popular sports. I believe that while their overall audience are probably not on average sports fans, the ones who are actually interested in sports follow the NFL, MLB and the NBA more than woman's tennis. I think the New York Times should be hiring good national writers who can offer a more analytical approach to popular sports. They should try to be hiring the next Zach Lowe's of the world.

But since no one subscribes to the New York Times for the sports section they will continue to do whatever they want.

 

I'll never understand this. If you're a New Yorker, and especially if you commute by mass transit, you can get your fill of New York teams' gamers and quarterback controversies from the Post or News.

Gamers don't always make the deadline. I'd rather read good, well reported story about tennis or soccer -- which, with the population of New York, and the country, can hardly be described as obscure -- than the third version that day of last night's game.

The Times sports section is the best in the country. If you disagree, tell me who's better.

Look at it today. Who else had two staffers covering the Masters? Who even had an AP article on the NCAA Hockey finals, let alone had a Chicago based freelancer cover it for them?

Last night was the Rangers final home game of the season, and they awarded the annual Steven McDonald Extra Effort Award (a presentation I took part in when Continental Airlines was the presenting sponsor of the award). It was the first presentation since the death of McDonald. Was there a better story to write about in conjunction with the Rangers last night?

They've got Tyler Kepner on Brian Cashman.

And, they still have all the gamers.

And, all of this is despite the fact that the dead tree edition of the Times has precious few ads in the sports section.

 

I actually like it for the opposite reason. I find things there that I never see elsewhere. It's almost like they purposely caulk in the holes by picking off-beat topics or features that you wouldn't see elsewhere. Like right now they have a feature on Denver winning its 8th NCAA title on the landing page. Whereas SI is leading with a freaking column by Peter King about whether Tony Romo can make it as a broadcaster (with ANOTHER column about Romo by Dietsch right below it) , a story that's already been beaten to death and is nothing but supposition about a sport that doesn't start for five months. But the NFL drives clicks (especially when it's about the Cowboys), so they give the animals what they want instead of maybe steering the conversation a bit more by giving readers what they may not know they want to read.

Just look at the Times' landing page today. Notice anything missing?



Yup, not a single NFL story. Which makes sense bc the next big thing, the draft, doesn't happen for almost three weeks. Actually, the schedule release will probably happen before then, but still. It's not NFL season. Don't cram useless shit down people's throats just to get clicks.

 

Were the Raptors giving the Knicks 12.5?

 

THIS is the key.

 

Heh. Section I worked on last night sent two PHOTOGRAPHERS to the Masters.

And it's not even a Georgia newspaper.