Who wrote the best piece on Linsanity?
- Thread starter Alma
- Start date
Thanks to IJAG's post I took a minute to read the Torre lede, and it is fantastic. Painting the picture of Lin bouncing from place to place was very good because I wrongly assume all these guys sleep in palaces or the Plaza.
Not that writing and ideas are wholly disconnected--the quality of Torre's lede, for instance, stems in part from his reporting--but I find it interesting so much of the conversation revolves around the former instead of the latter. Obviously, sound writing helps convey ideas, but, for day-to-day coverage at least, I find I care less and less about the entertainment or aesthetic value of the writing beyond that.
Also, how much weight should we give each of these stories within the writers' larger bodies of work? For instance, is Whitlock somewhat excused from fully articulating his comments at the end of the piece given he's fully explained his views on these issues many times before? Ideally, his newest piece would link to his old columns on the topic, but maybe the Internet should give writers more freedom in trusting their readers either: 1.) they always follow them; or 2.) can look old the stories. It seems like a lot of people are still focused on shoe-horning old story models into a medium that allows for people to digest information in new and more efficient ways. (And, to be fair, Whitlock probably wasn't thinking about that--he, admittedly, just doesn't care all that much about writing. More just throwing this out there as an open question.)
Also, how much weight should we give each of these stories within the writers' larger bodies of work? For instance, is Whitlock somewhat excused from fully articulating his comments at the end of the piece given he's fully explained his views on these issues many times before? Ideally, his newest piece would link to his old columns on the topic, but maybe the Internet should give writers more freedom in trusting their readers either: 1.) they always follow them; or 2.) can look old the stories. It seems like a lot of people are still focused on shoe-horning old story models into a medium that allows for people to digest information in new and more efficient ways. (And, to be fair, Whitlock probably wasn't thinking about that--he, admittedly, just doesn't care all that much about writing. More just throwing this out there as an open question.)
Dizzy. Where is the exit door for this thread? Theme is an obvious cuddle up to Journalistic celebrity every bit as much Lin is being fed into the Fargo wood chipper that trickles down a snow of J money chips. Who cares about this list of selfserved fricksticks?
My thoughts, in order of how I posted them:
Doyel: I got the rhythms of the column just fine, and he pounds home the question enough times to successfully indict without having to unpack all the ideas. It's a little repetitive, and, perhaps it's just a pet peeve, but I would have liked to see Doyel kick that "what were they seeing?" into "Who were they seeing?" at some point. Doyel nibbles more here than I thought he would. More a jab than his usual big punch. I get the sense he wasn't quite ready on this topic. Not like he was on LeBron, Boatwright, Penn State or Tebow. When Doyel is dialed in, he doesn't rely as much on language tricks as he did here.
Reilly: The quips ruin it. Absolutely ruin it. For one that works, three are Chris Berman. He didn't need them, either. The Rex Walters quotes are good, especially the second one.
Woj: Like the lede, the angle, the quotes, and sharp inside-basketball opinions like this:
"Of course now, owner Joe Lacob is blaming the old coach, Keith Smart, for failing to play him as a backup last season. Lacob is playing the “”I-knew-it-all-along” game, and it’s downright embarrassing."
and
"The Knicks were no geniuses for claiming Lin off waivers, just desperate. New York coach Mike D’Antoni had nowhere else to turn, and nothing but more games to lose."
I like how the column/analysis isn't going allow some GM/coach to take credit for discovering the kid.
Kang: It's good, and it's pretty hard to argue it's not. Am I a little surprised that Kang suddenly writes the basketball sections with a little Bill Simmons clarity? Yes. Because this piece actually appears to have been slightly edited by someone.
Yes, it's an "I" piece. But Kang explains part of why it will be, pokes a little fun at his "thinkpiece." It delves into the player's skills, his weakness as a "black hole," how he fits the New York stereotype, how he changes the team chemistry. It's too long and I got bored in the Lakers/Knicks stretch. But overall, it's one of the best of this bunch.
Araton: Boring. Too blandly analytical. The lede ends with a possessive? And Carmelo Anthony? After that game? Weird. Araton was trying too hard here to project three weeks out instead of reacting.
Whitlock: As usual, his best material is halfway through, and he simply gives up on the ending with some bizarre declaration of purpose. A lot of Whitlock's stuff is like this. He chooses to make a point, not an argument. He gets to the point, makes it, and wraps up as quickly as possible after that. At any rate, minor stuff, really.
Lupica: Tommy Amaker can just write the column next time. What a day. In this place, of this time, with these people, in the town of the country they call: America.
Torre: In a small space allotted, excellent. Good details, smart use of short quotes, and the back half flows as well as the first. There are some advantages here - more space, a bit more time - but Torre balanced subtle observation, good sourcing and strong analysis.
Arthur: For pure writing, you have to like it. It's overwrought, it's a bit cute with the series of "ands" on the final shot, and the kicker is dream factory stuff. Still, in the moment, when you know Lin might be through Toronto just once and have it feel like it did Tuesday night, you write big and hope people relive it the next day. For the setting and the way the game ended, I found it appropriate.
Doyel: I got the rhythms of the column just fine, and he pounds home the question enough times to successfully indict without having to unpack all the ideas. It's a little repetitive, and, perhaps it's just a pet peeve, but I would have liked to see Doyel kick that "what were they seeing?" into "Who were they seeing?" at some point. Doyel nibbles more here than I thought he would. More a jab than his usual big punch. I get the sense he wasn't quite ready on this topic. Not like he was on LeBron, Boatwright, Penn State or Tebow. When Doyel is dialed in, he doesn't rely as much on language tricks as he did here.
Reilly: The quips ruin it. Absolutely ruin it. For one that works, three are Chris Berman. He didn't need them, either. The Rex Walters quotes are good, especially the second one.
Woj: Like the lede, the angle, the quotes, and sharp inside-basketball opinions like this:
"Of course now, owner Joe Lacob is blaming the old coach, Keith Smart, for failing to play him as a backup last season. Lacob is playing the “”I-knew-it-all-along” game, and it’s downright embarrassing."
and
"The Knicks were no geniuses for claiming Lin off waivers, just desperate. New York coach Mike D’Antoni had nowhere else to turn, and nothing but more games to lose."
I like how the column/analysis isn't going allow some GM/coach to take credit for discovering the kid.
Kang: It's good, and it's pretty hard to argue it's not. Am I a little surprised that Kang suddenly writes the basketball sections with a little Bill Simmons clarity? Yes. Because this piece actually appears to have been slightly edited by someone.
Yes, it's an "I" piece. But Kang explains part of why it will be, pokes a little fun at his "thinkpiece." It delves into the player's skills, his weakness as a "black hole," how he fits the New York stereotype, how he changes the team chemistry. It's too long and I got bored in the Lakers/Knicks stretch. But overall, it's one of the best of this bunch.
Araton: Boring. Too blandly analytical. The lede ends with a possessive? And Carmelo Anthony? After that game? Weird. Araton was trying too hard here to project three weeks out instead of reacting.
Whitlock: As usual, his best material is halfway through, and he simply gives up on the ending with some bizarre declaration of purpose. A lot of Whitlock's stuff is like this. He chooses to make a point, not an argument. He gets to the point, makes it, and wraps up as quickly as possible after that. At any rate, minor stuff, really.
Lupica: Tommy Amaker can just write the column next time. What a day. In this place, of this time, with these people, in the town of the country they call: America.
Torre: In a small space allotted, excellent. Good details, smart use of short quotes, and the back half flows as well as the first. There are some advantages here - more space, a bit more time - but Torre balanced subtle observation, good sourcing and strong analysis.
Arthur: For pure writing, you have to like it. It's overwrought, it's a bit cute with the series of "ands" on the final shot, and the kicker is dream factory stuff. Still, in the moment, when you know Lin might be through Toronto just once and have it feel like it did Tuesday night, you write big and hope people relive it the next day. For the setting and the way the game ended, I found it appropriate.
Elliotte Friedman
Well-Known Member
Good thread, some great analysis.
Piotr Rasputin
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,984
- City & State/Province
- Professor Charles Xavier's School For Gifted Young
We have an excellent contender for Worst Piece on Linsanity:
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sensationalized-media-frenzy-surrounding-knicks-lin-lacks-perspective-restraint/
http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/sensationalized-media-frenzy-surrounding-knicks-lin-lacks-perspective-restraint/
Michael_ Gee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 39,411
David Brooks in the Times today is a worst contender as well. Said Lin was an anomaly in sports due to his religious faith.
CentralIllinoisan
Active Member
Piotr Rasputin said:
What, exactly, is wrong with this?
As The Crow Flies
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 219
Michael_ Gee said:
I usually find Brooks interesting, but that column was really weird. To say sports and religious faith are mutually exclusive seems a bit extreme.
