Times - Jet/ Giant Beat Coverage

[jgmacg]

Common knowledge, I'm afraid. He's gone into a genteel state of semi-retirement, and will do only a few emeritus columns here and there. Announced, I think, two weeks ago.

 

[shockey]

who is greg bishop? did he intern at the star-ledger? name rings a bell. ??? ??? ???

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Boots,

You asked for it with that moronic remark about the Oreo in the Sugar Bowl, since edited. But we move back to the original topic now.

 

[shockey]

if this is true, man, am i going to miss stories like these on the jets from the times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/sports/football/30jets.html?ref=sports

obviously, i tease. i don't know how the sarcasm font works. "are you my mother? was a dr. seuss book, no?

 

[Boom_70]

if this is true, man, am i going to miss stories like these on the jets from the times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/sports/football/30jets.html?ref=sports

obviously, i tease. i don't know how the sarcasm font works. "are you my mother? was a dr. seuss book, no?

I don't know how the Jets even can take the field. They are one Lifetime channel story after another.

 

[jgmacg]

Just to widen the discussion here, and to hear some other theories from those better informed than I:

It seems to me that Jets fans - generally understood around these parts to be solid, blue-collar folks - are going to get their exhaustive Jets coverage from the Daily News and the Post, the solid, blue-collar newspapers.

The Times is the white-collar newspaper (and always has been), and the Giants are the white-collar football team (and always has been). Perhaps the demographers at the NYT assume the Jets fan sits somewhat outside the Times readership. Hence the Times's quirkier - and some might say spottier - coverage of the Jets.

Agree, disagree, refute, corroborate. Have at it.

 

[shockey]

Just to widen the discussion here, and to hear some other theories from those better informed than I:

It seems to me that Jets fans - generally understood around these parts to be solid, blue-collar folks - are going to get their exhaustive Jets coverage from the Daily News and the Post, the solid, blue-collar newspapers.

The Times is the white-collar newspaper (and always has been), and the Giants are the white-collar football team (and always has been). Perhaps the demographers at the NYT assume the Jets fan sits somewhat outside the Times readership. Hence the Times's quirkier - and some might say spottier - coverage of the Jets.

Agree, disagree, refute, corroborate. Have at it.

respectfully disagree. from dave anderson to gerry eskenazi to judy battista, the jets' beat writers for the times did not cover the team like they were writing for "lifetime," as has been aptly put. this is all crouse. when the new beat person takes over, football will again take over the coverage, imo. for the better, also imo.

before the crouse supporters rise up, i have zero axe to grind. i don't know karen, who is a fine writer. but she's a square peg in a round hole. covering a team ain't her thing. she writes this kind of stuff as a cry for help, to let editors know she wants out. mission accomplished, it would seem.

her style is far better suited for golf, given the way the times covers it. good luck to her. and good, too, to jets' football fans who read the times.

 

[jgmacg]

Thanks, Shockey, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I met Gerry when I was working on a story once, and had read a lot of his work during my research. Nice man, good writer.

One of the things that struck me out at the Jets camp (this was what, 1999 I think, from rookie arrival to about the second week of the regular season), was this: The Post and the Daily News each had what seemed like four writers - between the beaters and the columnists - out there in some combination nearly every day. The Times had Gerry.

 

[gingerbread]

It's my understanding Karen is moving into Lee Jenkins' old job -- GA, features and enterprise. I'd consider this a "promotion," not "reassignment." It's a great fit -- Karen is excellent at getting subjects to trust her and open up about their lives, and she always seems to find interesting angles.

And it's possible jgmacg was correct in his assessment of how the Times wanted the Jets beat covered. It might not be how it was always done, but editors could have decided they wanted a beat writer to move away from the nuts and bolts and bring more human interest stories to their readers. Maybe that's how they sold Karen on the job in the first place. Maybe they'll return to the old way now, who knows?
In any event, this is a good move for a nice person and a wonderful writer.

 

[shockey]

Thanks, Shockey, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I met Gerry when I was working on a story once, and had read a lot of his work during my research. Nice man, good writer.

One of the things that struck me out at the Jets camp (this was what, 1999 I think, from rookie arrival to about the second week of the regular season), was this: The Post and the Daily News each had what seemed like four writers - between the beaters and the columnists - out there in some combination nearly every day. The Times had Gerry.

not true. all the papers have had 1 beat person there daily. maybe during playoff weeks, papers would have multiple folks there. but during the season, 1 beat person per day, with perhaps a columnist on occasion, but not daily.

the "promotion" debate is moot. karen never wanted to be on the jets. she accepted the job, from what i understand, with the assurance the beat would be temporary. she finally got her wish after a bit more than one full season. good for her. everybody wins. i'd imagine she's thrilled. so are jets' fans, i'd think. cool. 8) 8) 8)

 

[jgmacg]

Thanks, Shockey, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I met Gerry when I was working on a story once, and had read a lot of his work during my research. Nice man, good writer.

One of the things that struck me out at the Jets camp (this was what, 1999 I think, from rookie arrival to about the second week of the regular season), was this: The Post and the Daily News each had what seemed like four writers - between the beaters and the columnists - out there in some combination nearly every day. The Times had Gerry.

not true. all the papers have had 1 beat person there daily. maybe during playoff weeks, papers would have multiple folks there. but during the season, 1 beat person per day, with perhaps a columnist on occasion, but not daily.

That's true, I'm sure. It just seemed, especially in those preseason weeks, that the Post and the News fielded a bigger roster most days. Certainly whenever Parcells sat for a presser.

 

[boots]

Thanks, Shockey, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I met Gerry when I was working on a story once, and had read a lot of his work during my research. Nice man, good writer.

One of the things that struck me out at the Jets camp (this was what, 1999 I think, from rookie arrival to about the second week of the regular season), was this: The Post and the Daily News each had what seemed like four writers - between the beaters and the columnists - out there in some combination nearly every day. The Times had Gerry.

not true. all the papers have had 1 beat person there daily. maybe during playoff weeks, papers would have multiple folks there. but during the season, 1 beat person per day, with perhaps a columnist on occasion, but not daily.

That's true, I'm sure. It just seemed, especially in those preseason weeks, that the Post and the News fielded a bigger roster most days. Certainly whenever Parcells sat for a presser.

First off before I address this, there was nothing moronic about the fly in the sugar bowl statement. Elliotte, who did a fine job of editing some Ragu rif raft, kept his own jab at me. Elliott it was uncalled for but thanks for cleaning the page anyway.
Jcmg, when it comes to sending out personnel for a presser, the standard usually is a beat guy, a sidbar guy and a columnist in NYC. With the Times, Post, Daily News, Newday, the Star-Leger and the Record all able to send at least three and smaller places sending two, the room gets filled up pretty quickly. And that's not including the TV and radio stations.

 

[shockey]

boots, me thinks he was talking about daily jets-camp fair, not pressers for news announcements.

 

[gingerbread]

shockey,
I just read the Jets story you posted and thought it was pretty incredible. A player goes through most of his life knowing nothing about his mother's presumed death, and still hopes she might appear every time he goes to a different stadium? Had this story been told before?
Better yet, were hard-core fans disserviced by a football story that should have run instead of this piece? Was there news out of Jets camp that got lost because of the Times' decision to appeal to a different set of readers? I honestly don't know.
My only gripe was it seemed such a waste to run the story in Saturday's paper, but then I noticed the date is for tomorrow, so I'm presuming the Times put it up early on their web site for a reason.
I know you're an old-school football guy, which is why I'd be interested to hear how you'd treat these kind of stories. To me, we're lucky any time we can get something different, and lure in different buyers to the product. I really don't think it chases away "traditional" football fans, at least not from the Times.

 

[jgmacg]

boots, me thinks he was talking about daily jets-camp fair, not pressers for news announcements.

Exactly right. Thanks, Shockey. It may just have been that the fellas from the Post and the DN caused proportionately more commotion some days, leading me to believe there were more of them.

But I thank boots for the tutorial. In return I remind him that what was in his sugar bowl was not a fly, but an Oreo.

 

[21]

The last time we had the discussion, it was suggested that Jets fans (ie Boom et al) were too blue collar and lowbrow to appreciate the editorial focus of the Times coverage, which at that time was personality/profile driven. Heavy on tender moments, light on football.

This is a better discussion.

 

[gingerbread]

Still not taking back anything that might've been said or implied about Boom

But in all seriousness, have football fans (traditional or casual) been deprived of stories and/or news because of the direction the Times has gone with their Jets coverage? If so, are there specific examples?

 

[shockey]

gingerbread

maybe i'm just a bitter ol' fart. but on football sundays, i contend fans want to read about their team and something pertinent to the game. david barrett has an interesting personal story? sorry to be so cold, but who the heck cares? a jets fan on game day? i just don't believe so.

just my opinion. but i covered the jets for 13 seasons once upon a time. was pretty good at it, too. and if i was still on the beat, i'd get the times tomorrow and go, "whew! nothing to worry about here."

it's just the reality. if this was about chad pennington or curtis martin, joe schmoe would care enough to read it. but david barrett? gimme a break.

just not my cup of tea.

 

[hockeybeat]

I'm not sure the traditional football fan has been deprived with the Times' Jets coverage. Karen covered the hard news on the beat, and she wrote several really good, rather emotional features. What more was she supposed to do?

 

[Double Down]

shockey,
I just read the Jets story you posted and thought it was pretty incredible. A player goes through most of his life knowing nothing about his mother's presumed death, and still hopes she might appear every time he goes to a different stadium? Had this story been told before?
Better yet, were hard-core fans disserviced by a football story that should have run instead of this piece? Was there news out of Jets camp that got lost because of the Times' decision to appeal to a different set of readers? I honestly don't know.
My only gripe was it seemed such a waste to run the story in Saturday's paper, but then I noticed the date is for tomorrow, so I'm presuming the Times put it up early on their web site for a reason.
I know you're an old-school football guy, which is why I'd be interested to hear how you'd treat these kind of stories. To me, we're lucky any time we can get something different, and lure in different buyers to the product. I really don't think it chases away "traditional" football fans, at least not from the Times.

I'm with gb here. It blows my mind, shockey, that you would find anything wrong with a story like that. There are 1,000 places you can go to read about the nuts and bolts of football, and frankly, that kind of analysis bores me to tears. What is sports, really, if it's not about people? Boom has, of course, sparked this discussion before, ultimately calling the NYT Jets coverage sportswriting for women or dilettantes. I just think it's a magazine-style approach to beat coverage. Why wouldn't someone want to know about David Barrett's interesting history? If I'm a Jets fan, I care more about him after reading that story. I'm rooting for him. I don't really care about his technique in zone coverage.