tom jolly/"sports of the times" columnists

The Post has more columnists that get their mugs on TV, but the Times has a more well rounded sports section with more unique stories and better writing. Sports outside the big four barely exist on the pages of the Post. With less space, Jolly somehow seems to cover more. He'll cover a kid who climbs Mt. Everest, a girl who rows across the Atlantic, and a guy who made a skateboarding video that got millions of hits on you tube. It works for me. Just wish they had more space for box scores and stats.

 

so it always comes back to apples/oranges. the times does a terrificv job of ginving you the broadest range of sports-related stories. they believe this appeals to a large part of their readership. but for the MANY sports/times readers who favor the meat-and-potatoes sports, the section is lacking, imo. i'd argue that many of the "well-written" fringe sports pieces in the times are ignored almost entirely by readers who are sports aficionados.

no way to prove this, of course. i mean, for all the meat/potatoes reader friends i have who are pissed to see a skiing or ice skating feature instead of an araton column, who knows how many ice skating fans peruse the section instead?

still always seems to come back to personal preference. no right or wrong, really, i suppose.

 

The Post and the DN cover "meat and potatoes." And that's all they cover.

Do you expect the NYT to triple up on a market share that's already being served?

 

It's hard to say whether more readers prefer the Times broad approach or want more of the Big 4. But I will say that if you look at the sections "most e-mailed" stories, very often you'll find that the more minor sports stories are the most emailed ones. No idea why, but perhaps the story has to be quite good to get in the paper if it's from a more minor sport? Today's Times serves my point though- they've got 2 reporters in Paris to cover the French Open. I live in Chicago and the Trib doesn't even bother to put wire stories in on the French- and they've got twice the space to work with. I'm a sports fan who likes the Big 4, and sports like tennis, soccer, winter sports, etc, so I do like Jolly's approach.

 

Really? You can get stats and box scores anywhere.

 

Really it seems like in the last year The Times has gone back to a more esoteric Sports section and away from the meat and potatoes. There was a time from say 1998 to 2007 I thought they had the best sports section in the NY area.

 

As a reader, I'm glad the Times gives tennis, soccer, horse racing, smaller college sports like lacrosse, etc., good coverage, because if it doesn't, nobody will. The amount of time, space and reader interest they waste flogging the PED issue could and should be dropped.

 

With that kind of attitude, juicers would be HoF bound, etc.

That's real NEWS.

 

most people think they should be or just don't care.

 

Well, voters (and sanctioning bodies) obviously think otherwise, and if they don't have the "third estate" pursuing, then what?

 

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be pursued, I'm saying that most fans don't care. Check out attendance figures.

 

Press is the "Fourth Estate."