Today's NYTimes sports front

Yah. There have been tons of these kinds of articles.

Read that again, folks.

There have been tons of these kinds of articles.

My point is simply that in 10 years we won't be playing football the way we do now because it causes brain damage.

And in 10 years we will wonder why the fuck we didn't do more to get people's attention.

Criticizing the Times as gimmicky for alerting people to a major public health hazard is akin to slamming Koop for lack of creativity on cigarette warning labels.

 

Lugnuts, this article wouldn't rank in the top 20 of articles about concussions that have appeared in the New York Times. It wouldn't rank in the top 200 of articles (or TV pieces) that have been produced about the issue across all media.

 

And all those articles and TV pieces have had what effect ?

 

Tons, based on the plummeting numbers in youth participation and the general awareness of the topic. You think Chris Borland up and quits if those stories hadn't been written?

This particular story will not move that needle one bit.

 

I think it's naive to believe the Times used this gimmicky layout and design to draw attention to anything but how cool, edgy and innovative they are with the same (mostly) blank-page treatment they keep trotting out there.

 

That would be the cynical point of view. As a mother, I really felt for the mother. I thought it was an important story, and I really don't read the Times much these days. So seeing the odd layout did get me curious to read an article I probably wouldn't have otherwise.

My son won't play football, hockey or soccer because of the brain damage issue. That was the law put down by me awhile ago. 15 years of covering sports did that.

But Mr. Lugs has been making noise about "What if it's his dream" and some horseshit. I forwarded him this article immediately after reading it. It seems to have quieted him for the moment.

We're one family. If it affects a handful of families... Cheesy, misguided, inappropriate, overused gimmick ? Worth it.

 

OK. But I had no clue that's what they were trying to do.

 

I'm curious (and honestly don't know):

Have any of the Times' OTHER sections ever tried to pull the kind of stunt the sports department has pulled at least 3 times in the past two years?

If not . . . why not? Does sports hold a monopoly on edgy genius there . . . or is it (as I suspect) they're just trying to be too cute for their own good?

 

Nah, it's just that the Times' news sections have never written anything as powerful or important as their 100th feature on a football player with debilitating concussions.

 

What do you guys think of the Times' sports front for tomorrow's paper:

 

Now, that's really cool. Not the first time I've seen such a treatment, but it looks good.