tom jolly/"sports of the times" columnists

In the spirit of "things change," I'm not sure if any of you have noticed Mr. Araton has returned to sports.

 

Sirs, Madames,

My deux sous:

There's so many more sports, so many more complicating issues (various free agencies, cap issues, sign and trades, strength of schedule, etc), so many more teams and so much overlapping of seasons othat no one person covering all sports can possibly be up to speed on everything all the time and write with authority and have the reporting to back it up like those working the beat. Red Smith was great in Red Smith's time but this isn't Red Smith's time. Back then the NHL was six teams, basketball was not that much bigger (in terms of numbers of players to know). The football season was shorter and the same guys played both ways. The sports fan is generally more informed in his area of interest than the biggest fanatic was in the 1950s or 60s. You need a dialed-in commentator to sustain the readers' attention.

Someone parachuting into his terra incognita rarely can come up with informed opinion. And how many navel-gazing scene-setters can one suffer through. I think the readers sort through the know-nothing blowhards with only imagined command of the subject material.

I don't have a problem with Tom Jolly's approach. Play to your staff's strengths and don't expose the weaknesses.

o-<

 

thanks for checking in, tom. guess every other paper in the country's wrong then.

oh, and i'm not sure harvey is back in sports. i think he's just been bouncing around, sometimes landing with pieces in the sports section. can't say for sure; haven't spoken with him in the last month or so. i'll check.

 

Me thinks that The Times is spooked by the WSJ expanded sports and added New York section.

 

Mr shockey,

Not Tom Jolly. Only ever wrote him one letter of protest.

You go ahead and stick with the proven formula. No sense adapting to the times. In the office you run you're still using a dialphone and guys in green visors are setting type in the backroom.

Every other paper in the country isn't wrong. You can know your own market pretty well--though a four-sport town would make it awfully tough. But if you're a national paper, no one outside of the Schwab can keep all the names straight, never mind be up to speed on issues and breaking news in every sport. Maybe you can, but you're a hero.

o-<

 

He's back.

 

if true...that is a great decision. instant (re)upgrade for the section.

 

yup, harv's back in sports, in sort of a murky, bounce-around role. good for him and great for the section.

oh, and mr. friend, it's swell that jolly and the times has decided the sports landscape they cover has become too vast for "sports of the times" voices. doesn't mean they're correct. and i'd like to believe their readership has taken notice and misses the general columnists, especially with the two left standing being mssrs. vecsey and rhoden.

perhaps bringing harv back into the section is an indication of them acknowledging that. or perhaps it's simply them realizing his skills as a writer of any kind of piece was missed. but i surely disagree with the theory that the times is the one "national"paper so broad in scope that "sports of the times" columns were no longer needed.

their individual sports "voices" in baseball, football, baseball and hockey are not nearly strong enough to warrant the decision the geniuses in the masthead determined was required. simply my opinion. the section is not as strong as it was. again, my opinion.

it's all subjective. or objective. one of those two, i'm pretty sure.

 

As anybody who knows me knows, I've advocated letting beat writers write opinion since about 1985 (not an exaggeration for effect).

I continue to believe it's the right way, and will always believe so.

We do it at this website because that's the way our beats are set up.

But I've always thought it was the right way for newspapers to go as well. Your beat people are the most qualified to offer opinion and analysis. The whole separation thing has never worked for me. There are drawbacks, but to me, the benefits outweigh them.

Obviously, there's some serious disagreement over this issue.

But this does not dovetail with the idea you don't need Sports of the Times voices, too. You simply have both.

 

i have always agreed. there's room for both. or should be.

 

Jolly must be listening to R Scott Newman:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/53787/

It's good that Harvey is back but he has to realize that Willis Reed is not coming through the door anytime soon.

Jack Curry was a huge loss to The Times baseball coverage on a national scale.

 

It kills me that in so many of these discussions, the word "writing" never even appears. I fear this may be because so few editors have a visceral appreciation of the art.

Columnists are supposed to be your best writers. Readers want their section to have some analysis, sure, some reporting, yes, and some thoughtful writing that combines humor, phrasing and fresh ideas. The column is an anchor, a point of reference. It can be playful, instructive, and it has its own personality.

Columns matter. Writing sells newspapers and websites, too.

And, needless to say, I have a stake in this debate.