NYT LeBron sports front

I like it but with a caveat.

If that's the only coverage, then a big thumbs up. If there's 10,000 words and a half dozen photos, then I don't like it.

Here's why.

It tells the reader what they need to know and does so in a way that the average Times reader will understand. It most certainly isn't a local story and there's not much a Times writer could add to the coverage. It says this is a big deal and we also realize that everything you'll want to know, you already do but we couldn't ignore it either.

It is exactly the kind of treatment a sports section that is, at best, no. 3 in its market could do but do it in a way that will give it maximum national attention.

Find me a typical Times reader who gets the paper for sports and it might be awhile, so I'll wait.

You'll notice that no one, and I mean no one, is talking about what the Plain Dealer or Akron or anywhere else's sports front.

That, of course, all goes out the window if they had massive coverage inside.

 

Then lay them all off and run wire every day

 

Hi, Jay Farrar. I enjoyed Trace.

1. I am a New York Times subscriber. Sports is the principle reason.

2. Most NBA blogs picked up The Plain Dealer's very elegant front page.

3. You're ignoring the factual inaccuracy of the front.

4. How could that be all they would offer? There's so much required context missing. That's the worst idea yet.

5. The Times has the best sports writing staff of any newspaper in the country and produced several interesting articles.

6. I'm Team Jeff Tweedy. Sorry.

 

LOL.

It's the best sports section in the country.

 

You've said that before and your opinion doesn't make it right.

It isn't the primary read for sports fans in NYC. It runs non traditional sports stories but that is as much a function of deadlines for the various editions. It can run longer explanatories and such and that has some appeal.

But that doesn't make it the best, once you get past the Times brand. Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, KC Star are all metro papers that do better work. For national coverage, USA Today, freed from crappy local beat team coverage, can be superb. Particularly on college sports with Schroeder and Wolken.

 

Who cares if it isn't the primary read for sports fans.

What NYC paper has done a better job covering the World Cup?

What NYC paper has a better baseball columnist than Tyler Kepner? Who has a better baseball beat writer than David Waldstein?

No paper has better depth, or breadth, of coverage than the Times.

And, while you've told me what the Times does better than its local competitors -- non traditional, and longer explanatory stories -- you don't say what the Daily News or Post (I'm guessing these are the two you are ranking ahead of the Times) do better.

Would you care to inform me?

 

It's good to stand by one's principles.

 

This may make the top of your head blow off ... but New York City relinquished the title of newspaper capital of the country many, many moons ago.

And I feel no necessity to provide examples, if only because your claim of the NYT being the nation's best sports section is so ludicrous.

BTW ... Columbus proved that the world doesn't fall off into nothingness once you cross a bridge leaving New York City.

 

The guy said the Times is, at best, number 3 in it's market. That's fucking hysterical.

 

The New York Times has the best sports writers of any newspaper in the country but not the best sports section.

 

Your argument seems to be that since Fox is no. 1 in news then it's weather forecasting is automatically the best.

Anyway, day in and day out the Post and News do a better job of covering NYC sports.

Making the Times, again, at best. the third read for sports fans.

For a person who hates journalism and journalists, you sure do revere the Times.

 

You're whittling away at your own argument. The Times "sports" coverage is the best in the country. They do thing the others don't even attempt.

If I revere the paper with the best journalists, which produces the best journalism, it's almost enough to make you rethink your proposition that I hate journalism and journalists.