1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Today's NYTimes sports front

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by JayFarrar, Apr 27, 2015.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    All right. Then the sports editor doesn't know the history of this topic, and specifically his own publication's history.

    That's kind of weird.
     
  2. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    The most interesting bit in the SND piece was that the NYT uses 8.7 on 9.6 for body type.

    For comparison's sake, my papers run 9.5 on 11, it used to smaller but the old people complained and we made things bigger and looser back in the day.

    Anyone else want to share?
     
  3. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    We're 9.7 on 11.
     
  4. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    The SE read this in a word document and wanted to duplicate this? Um ... OK. I stand by my first comment: It's a trite, tired act played before.
     
  5. Flip Wilson

    Flip Wilson Well-Known Member

    The SND story called it a "gripping lede." It's an OK lede. It simply describes a scene. That's about it.
     
  6. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    I hope the designer said to the SE, "Now why the fuck would you want to do that?"

    But I doubt it.
     
  7. JRoyal

    JRoyal Well-Known Member

    We're 9.75 on 10. Wanted to do 9 on 10 when we changed fonts a few years back, but our executive editor (probably wisely) said we should go up a little (we were 9.5 on 10) so that when people inevitably complained that it was smaller (they did), we could tell them it was actually larger. Funny thing about people, esp. old people, when they can't tell what's different about type, they default to the size being smaller.
     
  8. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Why would the designer do that? The SE made his job really easy that night.
     
  9. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Just to be contrarian ....

    If the NYT had done something like this on their front page circa 1975-1980 about smoking...

    Like, no really, smoking is bad for you. Smoking could cause you to die a slow painful early death. Then we'd applaud the Times for calling attention to a major public health hazard, and who the fuck cares HOW they did it.

    Make it about football, though, and it's -- those fuckers at the Times, what a buncha douches.
     
  10. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    They've done it three or four times in the past couple years.
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Ah, there's Lugnuts.
     
    FileNotFound likes this.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Nah.

    I'm all for one-story fronts. I thought the LeBron transaction item was fine. Same with the blank front page for the HOF.

    This wasn't the definitive story on football concussions. It was a feature about someone who had suffered ill effects from football concussions. There have been lots of these. I wrote one. Patrick Hruby wrote one a couple years ago on a kid who committed suicide after a concussion that was one of the best sports features I've read in the last few years.

    There are a lot of ways to indicate that something is a really important story. This just looked like a mistake. I thought I was missing something.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page