NY Times "Feel Good" Jets Coverage

I don't think applying a "feminine" tag to Karen's writing is correct. I knew her during one of the early stops of her career, and the tag then was that she appealed to a young audience -- gender was not really an issue for those who attempted to apply a label at that time. Now that she's no longer young (ha-ha, sorry, Karen), people are trying to come up with a different label. "Feminine" is a convenient label, but what you really have is a writer who always went her own way and always seemed to view people as individuals rather than as part of a demographic or trend or part of a team, whether she was dealing with athletes or individual members of a copy desk. I don't think that's an attribute of her gender -- because female journalists are just as likely as men to try to categorize people -- I think it's an attribute of who she is as a person. I seriously doubt she is as mercenary and premeditated as the Vecsey anecdote makes Vecsey look.

 

What you point out about fringe readers, Frank, is a good point. Gannett papers are big on collapsing into a puddle when a caller or two asks for something to be in the paper. Ended up with the darnedest briefs and pieces of agate in the paper. A co-worker had a good take on fringe readers: Just let them get caught up in the churn.

 

I would agree with you, if we were talking about life in general and not sports journalism.

I'm having a hard time reconciling this with your understandable disdain for Vecsey's comment about appealing to women.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'girly,' but I can't get past the unfortunate vision of Lisa G on the sidelines in a tank top.

 

21, I can see why you'd be confused. ;D

Stereotypes stink. That's why I told the Vescey story. He assumed something about me -- that I'd like a certain kind of writing that would fit into some category simply because I'm a woman.

So........

Am I stereotyping Crouse if I call her style "girly"? Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words-- and I'm sorry if she happens to read this and I offended her...

BUT I'm also big on embracing our differences. i.e. There's nothing wrong with a woman looking like, acting like... or writing like what is seen by society as traditionally "womanly." If she has a style that looks at the softer things... like Elmo... what's wrong with that?

To sum up:
I'm a girly girl in my life (wear dresses, high heels, nail polish)... and let's say for argument's sake my reporting could also be called girly (filled with anecdotes about athletes' softer sides)... I still think my reporting could appeal to a wide cross-section of people-- and not just women.

--------------------






Postscript: Oh hell, I don't even know what I'm arguing here. I just think this is a fun topic. ;D

 

shockey, you nailed it on both counts. Features such as the ones Karen does, it would seem to me, have to be set up through the media relations department. I suspect they would much rather see stories such as that than ones that are more hard-hitting, and thus are eager to green-light them.

And you're not the only person who wonders if there is some payback in this to the Jets for basically torpedoing the NYC stadium. Because, as Boom has said numerous times, there is no other beat at the NYT that is covered this way. Tyler Kepner isn't writing stories about Andy Phillips' parents and Derek Jeter's high school biology teacher.

And as shockey also noted, the last time the NYT had a woman on this beat, Judy Battista, she covered the beat. Karen's a good person and a terrific writer, but bottom line is she isn't covering the beat.

 

Frank does make some valid points about fringe readers and gives a very good unemotional explanation of a paper's thinking on the Trib/ Bears thread.

All organization wrestle with their fringe audience. Some of more progressive companies that I have come across recognize that the fringe while not big in numbers might be the most influential of their customers because of their interest and knowledge.

The big question here is whether Jet fan/ Times reader who wants meatier coverage of the Jets is truly in the minority? Prior to this year Jet fan/ Times reader was getting traditional beat coverage.

Why did the Times make the change in the first place? Did their research show that Jet fans were skewed female?

The Times does not cover the Giants in this manner. Did their research show that Giant fans are more hardcore?

 

This post is useless witho....o never mind.

 

Well done, BYH!

But you forgot the part where Coles says, 'Get out the way, little puppet man.'

 

Luggy is far to modest to say but this "girly girl" in her first season, won the regular season of the NIAFL and is on her way to winning the overall championship.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is with the Times' coverage. They do a great job covering the games and the hard news, along with humanizing the players and coaches. After a while, X's and O's becomes dreadfully boring. There's only so many times readers will devour stories about of The Cover 2 defense before they stop reading and caring.

 

Thanks for the bulletin board material, you also-ran.

 

Hey - this is about "feel good " coverage.