TBL talks to Karen Crouse

If this were 1997 still, her inspirational rise to the NY Times would almost be enough to keep frustrated young journalists believing:

http://thebiglead.com/?p=4895

 

"When Tom Jolly, the sports editor at the Times, called me in February 2005 to ask if I’d be interested in interviewing for an N.F.L. beat at the paper, I was really surprised."

Funny... Tom judged Karen's Babashoff piece in February 2005 at APSE.

What a piece. Probably got her hired.

 

I ask this question in all sincerity about the following and in no way to dredge up the same old loaded b.s. about "Lifetime Channel" coverage: If Karen is working the NFL at the Daily News or the Post, would she really be able to so brazenly dismiss "the intricacies of the 3-4 defense" or the "latest rumors from unidentified sources."

I think we get a little self-important and out of touch when we dismiss fans' lust for that kind of information from their newspaper beat reporters. But I imagine it's different at the NYT because of the nature of the paper:

There are editors who would rather see their beat writers deliver the same story as everybody else than go off in another direction. To each his own. My take on it is this: There are plenty of news sources for fans wanting to learn the intricacies of the 3-4 defense or track the latest rumors from unidentified sources.

On an uneventful news day, if it comes down to talking to a player’s agent for a story or a player’s relative, I’m inclined to go with the relative. Nine times out of 10, the mother/father/brother/sister is going to give you a more interesting, more nuanced story.

 

Really nice interview, actually. Good job, TBL.

 

No, but maybe she should. I can see finding a spot for that if you can't let it go, but I would much rather read about the players than all that other BS that everyone is jibber-jabbering about.

 

In almost every market that has an NFL team, Web traffic is driven by hard news about that team. That isn't the perfect gauge, but it tells you something.

 

If we went by web traffic, we'd have half our staff focusing on recruiting news and half-naked celebrities.

 

There's your key line. The NYT figures, probably correctly, that someone who wants to know what eighth-grade hotshot Joe Bob Bobjoe from Pudsucker, Tenn., is thinking about his college football prospects is not, and never will be, a NYT reader. It all depends on what audience you seek, and what audience you think is seeking you.

 

Out the windows?

 

Those binoculars are a non-discretionary part of the newsroom annual budget!

And, as has been theorized here before, in a three-newspaper town (OK, three-and-a-half), the readers who want stat packages, Xs and Os, and unsourced updates on high ankle sprains and low groin pulls are likely already getting them from the other papers. Why not try to better tailor your sports coverage to your readership?

 

The thing is, I kinda agree with her.

 

<i>I wanted to take the beat somewhere else, go beyond the Xs and Os and humanize the players, paint them with a different brush, give readers a picture of who these people are behind their helmets and their padding and all of football’s macho posturing.</i>

I love that philosophy if you're a columnist or a feature writer. It's toxic if you're the beat person.

The reader/fan wants to know why the Jets are losing or whether they can keep winning. Their eyes glaze over when you give them the story of a player's mother's plight in the wrapper of beat coverage. This is a classic case of trying to give readers what we think they should care about instead of what they want.