New York Times sports reporting

newman,

re: the future of journalism

What, you worry?

YD&OHS, etc

 

Mr N--we won't let you down.

 

See ya around.
Of all the weeks to congratulate a fat-and-happy sports section on doing the fine job that its lavish paychecks ought to make mandatory, this week -- with real journalists' blood flowing, particularly on the West Coast -- wouldn't seem to be a good one.

Yea for Jolly Tom Jolly and the NY Times crew! Let's hope they rattle their jewelry in support of the bought-out and laid-off. Six weeks of severance pay is a lot different from Ms. Greenhouse's $300K early-retirement package.

By the way, Mister, my name is Joe. Williams. Consider me out.

 

And yet the same department produced this blight on the industry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/sports/hockey/29hockey.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

 

See, Scott, there's your problem. This is the same corporatespeak that everyone here already hears from the glass-office folks who are too damn dumb to save journalists' jobs. And we're sick of it.

Translated into English, what you say might be true, although I for one don't think so. But there is a key element in this business called "knowing your audience." I don't think you do, or you wouldn't have addressed us the way you have and prompted the tweak-the-foof remarks that were lobbed in your direction. You are not alone, by the way. This is a major problem in the newspaper business. First we were told to pander to idiots, and that didn't work. Then we were told to chase young readers. And that didn't work. Then we were told to court young idiots. And that really didn't work. And now they don't tell us much, except that nobody likes us anymore so we might as well die.

I know my views on the steroid scandal are out of the mainstream -- I don't give a crap about it -- so I'll address the Harvard story. I like the Times, been reading it since I was 14, fully understand that it pays more attention to the Ivy League (athletically and otherwise) than any other newspaper and I understand why. I am not saying the Times shouldn't have pursued the story, not saying that it didn't take a great deal of skill to get the story, not saying Tommy Amaker isn't the anti-Christ. But a "spectacular" story? No, no, no, no. This is a trivial story. It is a curiosity. It is illustrative a large problem in this business.

It is fucking Harvard. It is a one-day story that makes readers snicker that the "goddamn rich kids cheat like everyone else." And then it's forgotten. Because Harvard is going nowhere this year, at least in men's basketball. Spend the resources on a story that has some impact, that changes the course of history, that brings down a program that is actually, well, winning. Then I'd be impressed.

One more thing. Now remember, I like the Times. I'm not some Limbaugh lemming who delights in bashing it. But fresh off that McCain fiasco, the NYT once again fails to deliver the smoking Lexus. It was in such a hurry to finger Harvard (hey, hey, hey) that it runs a pretty gray-area story about contacts with recruits rather than wait for that scuzzy pig Amaker to do something really dirty and thus get an even better story. Now Amaker gets at most a slap on the wrist and becomes waaay more careful about being caught. The Times blew it.

We're too impatient. We're too obsessed with playing gotcha before we really gotcha. We're too focused on getting people's attention for five minutes rather than a lifetime. We're fucked. And when the Times is as desperate as everyone else, well, we're really fucked.

 

Thanks, Frank.

You did what I was trying to do, better than I could -- that is, to start a somewhat more agreeable, open-minded discourse -- one that could/would, hopefully, go in a clearer, kinder, more productive direction, than others have been inclined to take things.

I wish he would have taken the bait.

But now, mr.scottnewman, you will, hopefully, have a better understanding of why you were getting what, to you, were, perhaps, some unexpectedly unhelpful responses to your questions and statements.

This has been one horrible week, and you, I'm afraid, are seeing and taking some measure of this board's collective pain, anger, frustration and fatigue. People are just not in the mood right now.

 

Well, somebody has to take on Whitlock's former role of giving us all shit for being anonymous on an anonymous message board, right?

 

newman,

You're new so I'll forgive you on that one count -- I love Broadway musicals, quality ones anyway, probably one of the few here who has published stage crit (Christian Science Monitor, since you're all about announcing stuff) -- first Broadway show I went to was the original cast of Dream Girls. Saw Rent the second night it was in previews -- took my younger daughter to the Toronto production of Rent every Saturday one spring -- ten shows in all sitting in rush seats -- benches, really, in the first row -- the cast members started to recognize her when she'd wait at the stage door -- a friend landed a lead in Mamma Mia (going from Toronto to B-way) -- gotta say I hated Lord of the Rings -- I'd try to carve out a piece of real estate on your professional high ground -- can't stay

I've got to dash

YD&OHS, etc

 

Since I am new to this board, I hope it doesn't violate any canon to ---- multi-response.

Frank: I agree with you wholeheartedly about the corporate-speak. You've identified the problem. There is no mission statement (sorry, about the corporate jargon), direction, or strategy, and that scenario creates frustration, anger, and the fear I am hearing on the board. I feel for everyone in this business who cares about it. I care, or else I wouldn't spend time on this board.

I worked in TV where research is king, and audiences are often broken down into how many people watching have attended two or more Broadway shows in the past week. Newspapers need to do that. ID what subjects can drive an audience -- the Yankees, ninth-grade lacrosse, colorguard -- and then be the most insightful, and the best on those topics. Don't try to be everything to everyone.

I know I may get blasted here, however we are entering a time where it's going to be more lucrative for a reporter to start their own site on a subject they cover better than anyone else, and has a potential audience to succeed via a subscription model, or ad revenue -- than work for a McClatchy, Zell, or Lee.

My point on the NYT is that they are breaking stories, and providing insight and information that you can't get anywhere else. Unless Mr. Jolly is provided a list of subjects or topics that will grow an audience, or the business side can best monetize, his talented group has done their job. That's all they can do right now.

Now on the Broadway shows. I had never gone to one until my daughter started doing plays some 10 years ago. She was the lead in our middle school production of Guys and Dolls. I go all the time when I travel. Guys and Dolls in London; Mamma Mia in Vegas, Toronto. You're a Good Man Charlie Brown in Carson City, Nevada. Oliver, whenever, I can catch it.

 

First JDV, now
Newman. How
shall we survive?

 

So says the man who states that Jet fans should just read another paper if they are unhappy with the Times coverage.

Your highbrow attitude and disregard for your readership is just stunning. When people wonder why the newspaper business is in trouble look no further than the Frank Ridgeway's of the world.

BTW - Liked the Harvard story but found the story of Cornell's 48 hour bus trip done a few weeks ago by Pete Themel a more engaging story.