The NYT and The Athletic

Pretty convoluted post. You make no sense. You say that editors are more concerned with getting subscriptions, so they are holding back stories that the writers are writing? No sir.
I think it's the other way around. Those editors are assigning garbage stories and making their writers in every city do the same story on their teams.

 

What is "stations of the cross” sports journalism?

 

Y’all know that The Athletic is wildly different from when it started, right? They have hired editors who have radically shifted their content approach.

 

How is The Athletic "wildly different from when it started?"

 

I remember when this board used to mobilize so quickly and vehemently against anyone who dared criticize The Athletic for doing wonky weird stuff like writing 2000 words about the hot dogs in the Montreal press box. Also it was only 2 years ago.

 

Well, for starters, they actually write breaking news. At the beginning, they didn’t even bother.

 

Everybody filing the same story from the same pregame meeting with the manager, then the linueup story, then the gamer.

In other words, going through the motions and being overly formuliac, being so bogged down by the day to day formula that nothing interesting or enterprising ever gets done

 

If you care to go back and read the post carefully, you will see that I wrote "THOSE AT THE TOP OF THE ATHLETIC" are the ones placing the importance on writers generating subscriptions. I never said EDITORS are more concerned with subscriptions. Those at the top may or may not have the title editor but it isn't likely they are the EDITORS working with the writers on a daily basis. I know from speaking with people who work at the Athletic that generating subscriptions is the No. 1 metric when it comes to judging writers. Each one is given a quota. To avoid firing or probation at the least, they have to hit that quota every year. The staffers hoped this would end when the Times took over but judging by the recent firings, apparently not.
Now, I was also saying I would bet writers like Dillman would either write or propose way more than one story a week. But someone (EDITORS???) is deciding not to publish or turn down the proposal. Either way, it works against a writer trying to hit their quota and stay employed. For a lot of them it means sleepless nights and much unhappiness.
Sorry for any typos but your snarky post really pissed me off.

 

I also DID NOT say editors are "holding back stories that the writers are writing" because they "are more concerned with getting subscriptions." Now there's something that makes no sense.

 

You'd make a great editor. Your only criteria for publishing is whether or not there's enough space. Yeah, I can't wait to read your product.

 

Hey, it's like we have a Next Gen Frederick.