NY Times "Feel Good" Jets Coverage

If you noticed I did not even mention writers name in my initial post because I did not want to make it about Karen.

The stories are very good but misplaced as sub for Jet beat coverage. It stands out that The Times covers the Jets in human interest way and The Giants in more traditional manner.

What the Times should do is cover football like they do baseball and put Karen more in the role they do with Jack Curry on baseball.

The Coles story was a good one but now its been beaten into the ground. Now with almost every catch we learn that Coles was molested and is building a 300,000 sq ft house.

The Times has turned The Jets into NY's Lifetime Network team.

 

After reading the whole thing, I feel so... tingly all over....
I need a bubble bath, excuse me now...

 

Boom, you really want more x's and o's?

But you can get that anywhere!!

 

Let's hit Hitler where he lives.

 

When it had openings for beat Giants and Jets beat reporters, the Times went out and paid a bunch of money for proven columnists (Crouse and Branch) and turned them back into beat reporters. The reason, obviously, is for stories like this. It appears the paper wanted more than just a diagnosis of the zone blitz or whatever. Of course, the writing is great. It's just different. It doesn't read like anything in the Post or the News. And, as was mentioned, it led to the Coles story.
Personally, I love the approach. Readers now know that if you want to get to know the Jets or the Giants as people, instead of as numbers or helmets, you read the Times.

 

Someone once said that the Times' sports section is for people who don't like sports. That's obviously a generalization, but there's some truth to that.

 

I want a better balance between the two. I don't want to feel like I am reading the printed version of the lifetime network.

This is just another example of sports coverage moving away from hardcore fans. Its the style that Dick Ebersole perfected in Olympic coverage but also the style that lost my interest.

 

Karen is a very talented reporter and writer, but she is misplaced as the Jets beat reporter. She would be much better in a role like that of Lee Jenkins. She writes stories that have nothing to do with the current state of the team much of the time. They're just fluffy features. I know the Times is not the Post or the News, but they should have some pure football stories.

I think Tyler Kepner is the best example of what the Times beat writer should be. Tyler writes his share of human interest stories (Chien-Ming Wang comes to mind last year), but he also breaks news and keeps fans informed on what is happening on and off the field.

 

Agree writing is great, but she is misplaced as Jet beat reporter.

In baseball season more of feature stuff is done by Jack Curry which allows Tyler to focus on game.

 

As an admirer of Karen in particular and the Times in general, I think the coverage works. Karen broke the story of the year - years, perhaps - on Coles. John Branch, mentioned earlier, broke the story of the year on the Giants with Tiki's retirement. Seems to me their beat skills are serving them quite well.

 

But is it serving their readers?

 

I would say yes they are. Boom, you are talking about a Tuesday paper, two days following a pretty decisive win in Green Bay. Seems to me like a good day for a feature, not a breakdown of the 3-4 defense. But maybe that's just me.