NYT Obliterates Lolo Jones

HolleyMangold ‏@HolleyMangold

its crazy @lolojones gets flack for being an attractive athlete and I get flack for not being attractive enough #theresnopleasingeveryone

 

Flack? I think she means "fame."

 

No kidding. We're talking one negative column here, and it's the end of Lolo Jones' world to some people.

I think it's telling that Jones chose to focus on that criticism instead of the hundreds of media members who have supported her. Not telling because it's a moral defect. Telling because she knows two of the sources are her fellow competitors. Something wasn't right there.

 

I think it's telling that so many members of the media supported her. Most of the columns that I read focused more on Jones finishing 4th than they did on the Medal winners.

 

Boom's worlds just collided.

 

Good for the Times (and anyone else) for calling out Longman. It was a bullshit piece that served no purpose other than to be a hatchet job.

 

The Times Sports section has really lost it's direction. Tom Jolly must be really enjoying this.

 

Oh, I don't think that's telling. Sportswriters are the ultimate navel gazers, Boom. That's what this site is. You give them a chance to critique their own -- while also espousing vaguely liberal ideas about the financial rights of a beautiful woman -- and shit, you're cooking with gas. Hell, Plaschke was so sympathetic he ended his column like this:

<i>"Now I've had two bittersweet Olympics," Jones said. "I'm like, man every time I come here, I get burned.… I don't know.… I'll always think, what could I have done differently.''

Nothing.</i>

I mean, hell, Plaschke. She coulda finished <i>third</i>, right?

 

If Longman had written a story about friction between Harper and Wells and Jones and quoted the parties, I wouldn't have so much of a problem. He is reporting news and using sources. What he wrote was just his own personal rip.

 

I find Brisbane is pretty terrible at his job, but I'm not sure I agree with the thrust of your critique. Neither accuracy nor "journalistic[] sound[ness]"--whatever that even means, since it sounds somewhat circular--should provide an absolute defense from criticism. Plenty of things journalists have done because they've always done them may simply be wrong, even if technically "ethical" (and, inversely, some "unethical" things might actually be good)--as I frequently try to point out on the journalism board. If media organizations really want to serve readers, they should continually reexamine what they're doing. And, although this could hurt their public perception, ultimately, I'll trust a paper more if I know they're willing to subject their reporters to the occasional public flogging (when that reporter does something wrong, which I'm not necessarily saying Longman did here).

 

eliot you must not read The Times public editor much. I found his critique consistent with how he usually handles this type of story.