NY Times "Feel Good" Jets Coverage

hypocritealert is no antibackstabber or bspolice, that's for sure.

 

What in the hell...

Mangini: "OK Elmo we're going to play a game. Pretend you're a former starter nursing an injury. Chad, Laveraneus and Ben are reporters. How will you answer their questions? Go!"

Chad: "Elmo how are your ribs?"

Elmo: "I did what I had to do to finish the game."

Laveraneus: "Is it true the injury is tickling related?"

Elmo: "You guys know I can't talk about injuries. Ask coach."

Graham: "Ahoy matie are you upset you're no longer the starting running back?"

Elmo: "Elmo's just here to help the team. Whatever role coach wants me to fill I'll fill. I'm taking it day by day and doing my work."

Mangini: "Good job! Now you only have to run seven post-practice laps instead of eight!"

 

Elmo: Hey Laveraneus I know how you feel Jim Hensen once plowed me in the ass.

 

i don't understand the complaints about crouse. if you want the leatherhead stuff go find it somewhere else. newspapers have to pursue a niche strategy - the time of being all things to all people is long past.

 

I think there are only two assumptions we could possibly make about this thread:

1.) No one on the NYT's editing staff reads this site, and they remain blissfully unaware of your criticisms.

or 2.) They've read what you've written here and dismissed it as being uninformed and wrong.

My guess is No. 2.

 

But what is the Times niche strategy for the Jets? They do not cover the Giants in the same manner.

Have they decided that Jet fans are looking for more human interest coverage as opposed to meaty football stories?

Frank - I would grant you that there is a lot of room for me being wrong but when someone like Shockey or 21 agree with me I would say I am not far off.

 

Re the Jets coverage vs. Giants coverage in the NYT:

Maybe somebody here can enlighten, but I haven't seen any discussion on whether one franchise is more accessible than the other.

I did hear, a few years back, that the Jets were one of the worst, driest professional teams to cover, and I've heard Mangini puts tight controls on players' words, and that Pennington speaks only once per week and only at the lectern, etc.

The Giants, meanwhile, have these wonderful, open, intra-team spats that directly concern football matters.

Maybe tightness-of-lip makes Sesame Street seem like manna by December.

 

And, that said, Karen Crouse, herself a former athlete at USC, has been excellent to the point of wonderful in three different markets, with beats, features and columns, and with various approaches at various times.

True, she did do an X-and-O story on Mangini's revolutionary formations at one point this year, but also true, it's clear she prefers the feature-y approach maligned here.

Yet her features this fall alone from the Pennington family house in Tennessee and about Mangold's football-playing sister in Ohio were the two most memorable things I've read about the Jets this year (and I like the Jets). Might they alone justify the entire approach? I suppose that's the worthy debate that's already gone on for three pages.

 

I know of at least one NYT copy editor who regularly, and I mean regularly, posts here. I won't out that person, though

 

Frank since I have read the NY Times for almost 40 years cover to cover I would think I am somewhat qualified to render an opinion as a reader.

I would also think that open minded editiors would want to hear what their loyal readers think.

 

beat reporters should do what they do best - play to their strengths - and its up to the SE to worry about the mix - i assume the SE knew what he was getting when he hired crouse - and decided it was right for his mix - you can get all the technical hard-core stuff you want on the jets, somewhere else, with little effort

 

let me just say this has been three pages worth of an excellent discussion. except for one post, it has not been nasty or reduced to name-calling.

carry on.