NY Times SE "Bumped" Upstairs

I'm quite familiar with him and his position (and I'm not him). It's not easy being the Times' SE in this environment -- Sports is the company's only section that tries to be national, regional and local simultaneously -- and the product hasn't been helped by some inconsistent writing and reporting and by a roster with some mismatched roles. That said, Tom has steered his group pretty well for several years and figures to succeed in the night editor spot (he did some news at the Times before sports).

 

i'd guess linking the move to the duke embarrassment is off-base, considering that was (relatively) eons ago. but i know for certain jolly compiled a list of many malcontents and his decision to do away with some of his most talented writers -- harvey araton, the most glaring -- eventually boomeranged on him (harvey has been back where he belongs since early this year).

dunno if this move was based on any one thing or just a case of the times seeking a diifferent approach... but there's no way jolly considers this a 'bump up.' a move to a 'night editor' at this stage of his career and life? i think not.

 

While the Times carries the prestige and the power in New York, I'd say when it comes to sports the Daily News, Post, Newsday and Bergen Record (and Newark) have tons more strength. I think the NYT individual writers can be outstanding at times, but the section as a whole should be bigger than it is given the NY area.

 

'...the product hasn't been helped by some inconsistent writing and reporting and by a roster with some mismatched roles.'

um, wouldn't those be pretty substantial negatives when reviewing a sports editor's scorecard? not being snide. just asking. seriously.

 

I may be in the minority on this, but I think the NYT is the best sports section in the country. Not one of the best, but The Best.

I say that because Jolly and the NYT have challenged traditional and conventional thinking about what a sports section is. I say that because they don't worry about every pulled hamstring and and sprained ankle. They don't try to out-tabloid the tabloids.

As a regular reader, it seems like the goal is to tell good stories and smart stories. And they do it with conviction. If it means not covering a Rangers road trip to tell a great story, they do that. They spend money to go places.

They don't spend nearly as much time or as many resources on things that readers know at night before they go to bed. I like that a lot of the stories try to answer the questions of "why?" or "what does this mean moving forward?" Lots of readers know the nuts and bolts long before they read the NYT.

What I like about the NYT is that I am often surprised by the stories I find and I mean that in a good way. They write smart and interesting stories. Too many newspaper sections are predictable and boring. That is too often the case with my local metro. The NYT is not that. And that's what I like about it.

 

I agree with much of what accguy wrote.

Smart stories are the things for me, what I notice, when they're there.

I also think the NYT sports section should be considerably larger, though. It is New York, after all, and it is sports, in which there is generally plenty of interest.

 

accguy has a very good take -- i don't know that i'd say they're the best, because i don't find their actual "sports" material or columnists all that interesting. but they have done a very nice job of mining niches for interesting stories. you could make the case that the NFL wouldn't have had to deal with the concussion problem if not for the NYT's reporting.

 

He thanked me for following him on Twitter, but I think it was a personalized auto response.

 

I don't read the Times for the nuts and bolts coverage of the New York sports scene. I read it because I like stories about the Patriot League debating on whether to allow schools to offer football scholarships, or some of its sports business pieces on European rugby and soccer. It leaves the other stuff to the Post and Daily News.

 

what they've done is taken a more 'national' approach at the expense of nuts-and-bolts coverage of the major locals. so, those readers who only read the times have to go to a tabloid if that's the coverage they seek.

for non-new yawkas, i can certainly see the appeal in that vision, with more emphasis on 'think' pieces and takeouts. but while i believe all of that makes for a wonderful sunday section, i'm still unconvinced that it works that well for n.y. straphangers... or even the vast majority of workin' folk who may not have the time or patience to read much of what the times has been serving up.

i'm not looking at it from 'journalism' vantage point; i'm trying to imagine if this vision is a realistic one. seems a bit idealistic to me. should we takes harvey's return to the sports pages as any indication jolly took them too far in that direction? beats me. execs at the times haven't confided anything to me... ha, ha...

 

But the straphangers were never Times readers, were they? They've always been tab readers. Why try to fight for a piece of a pie that's already been divided up - not just by the Post and the DN, but by espn and the internet and sports radio and every other nuts and bolts outlet?