NYT LeBron sports front

No idea.

 

Perhaps because the thread is based on the front cover of the print edition?

Jesus.

 

This may have already been discussed, but didn't Lewis Grizzard do something similar?

 

I haven't seen what was on new stands in NYC this weekend, so if it was a lot different hopefully somebody can set me straight. But I do see both editions several times a year and there usually isn't a significant difference in the sports section.

I like The New York Times sports section. It's the only paper I subscribe to, but I'm not going to act like it is everything to everyone.

 

The World Cup is a prime example that when the NYT wants to throw everything at a particular subject, it can do it better than anyone else.

As everyone else has said, if you are looking specifically for day-to-day coverage of the local teams, it is the No. 3 option in the market. Now you can argue in this day and age fewer and fewer readers are looking for day-to-day coverage in a newspaper and prefer off-the-beaten-path stories, but as someone in the market it consistently lacks the depth of the Post or News on the locals.

Just as an example, but the Times' Super Bowl coverage and Stanley Cup coverage was lacking compared to the competition. Yet they decide to throw everything at the World Cup. That should give you a pretty solid indication that they're not targeting a local audience in the slightest.

 

After Georgia lost to Georgia Tech, Grizzard wrote something along the lines of, I don't want to talk about it, then 20 inches of white space and his column tag at the end.

Back to the meander.

Since something like 80 percent of the Times' circulation is outside the New York metro area, what's the point is the answer to many questions regarding the sports pages in those papers.

They've kinda cobbled together this outside the lines coverage of New York teams mixed in with magazine style pieces on things not typically seen in sports section. I always think of wind surfing here.

Anyway, sports is just part of the bundle of things they include, not the focus or an area of real concern.

One could argue, and I won't here and wouldn't, that the sport section is actually an underachiever. They have a unique opportunity to put out two sports sections. A local section that is deadline driven and has muscular coverage of the local pros and colleges and a section or pages of a national edition that truly took a look at the big picture and was, in essence, a sports magazine that printed daily. Instead they go for a mix and it is one of the many reasons why the sports coverage, not the paper, is, again, at best, the No. 3 read in New York.

Also, I pay for the NYT Now app on my phone and outside of the World Cup coverage, I see, at most, a sports story once a day. Never any of the team coverage, never a sports columnist, never a sports feature.

If the Times truly was the best sports section in the country, wouldn't the paper do a better job of promoting and pushing the sports coverage?

 

Who did the Star-Ledger have in Brazil?

 

Jerry Izenberg. He has covered every World Cup

 

The debate over the past two pages has been about coverage of sports. Somehow, we all agreed the cover sucked.

Fine work.

 

Also, the best Jay Farrar song is "Barstow."

 

Still Be Around, but thanks for playing.

 

Underwhelmed by Tyler Kepner's baseball writing.
It's not terrible but it isn't great, either.