NYT Obliterates Lolo Jones

Elliot,perhaps our difference of opinion lies with the fact that you are looking at it as a writer and I am looking at it as a reader.

Through your lens I would guess that you would not like to thrown under the bus after the paper approved and published your story. As a reader I think that The Times builds a great bond of trust when they are willing to criticize their work.

The PE did make that the point that perhaps the flaw is with the system and not the writer since the Times style allows opinion to work it's way into some stories:

" The article by Jere Longman appeared under the Olympics-coverage “In the Rings” signature, which The Times uses to signify that the article is a point-of-view piece and not straight news coverage. This means, in The Times’s style, that the writer has some latitude to insert his own perspective.

I have written in the past about problems that arise with this approach, which sometimes translates into too much opinion appearing in the news columns. In this particular case, I think the writer was particularly harsh, even unnecessarily so."

As a reader I had no idea that "Inside The Rings" meant writers opinion. The story was placed on the front page of the sports section and just looked like a story-- not an opinion column. Maybe it would have been better received as an op ed piece or just a blog post.

Now that we know that both Jones and Longman are LSU graduates, maybe we can speculate that Longman was upset that Jones rebuffed him on a story that he wanted to do about her.

 

He committed major sins of omission. For one thing, he left out the fact that she had major surgery/nerve damage, etc. A major problem was that the piece was so short-- a hit-and-run.

But the biggest gaffe is what the public editor touched on-- it's an opinion piece on the front page of the New York Times, and even the most avid Times readers didn't know that. If it's supposedly part of an "Inside the Rings" bullshit opinion series, people need to be made aware that it's opinion or "point-of-view."

Disclaimer: I've met Jere, covered many events with him... he always struck me as a phenomenal reporter and writer. What the fuck happened here? Somebody peed in his gumbo. Was he upset about something with his daughter? Lolo blew him off for interviews? What were the circumstances of this assignment-- last-minute? Had he been drinking? (Seriuosly.. that occurred to me when I read it.)

It reeks a little bit of women's advocacy journalism-- if you're not treating women as asexual, pure athletes, you're not on Team Girl Power!

Don't let women's advocacy journalism happen to your friends, folks. Save people from the stink of this fate.

I actually think Jere and the Times need to issue a formal apology. It will never happen, and that kind of thing rarely does happen... but it seems like the right thing to do in this case.

 

The failure-to-label-something-as-opinion-vs.-news criticism always strikes me as very weak. Do readers even recognize this divide? Maybe NYTimes readers are more sophisticated than most, but I think journalists often tend to just assume readers know more about the business than they really do (see the continually arguments about datelines--if journalists can't agree on what they mean, then how are readers supposed to know what they signify?). Anyone complaining about "it should have been labeled as opinion" is usually someone that simply didn't like the article and only latches onto this labeling problem to make their seem more authoritative.

 

But if you don't label as opinion doesn't it make it sound if it's coming from both The Times and the writer instead of just the writer.

I think it was a mistake for The Times Sports section to get away from columnists and have their writers jump between opinion columns and stories. Longman story is a case in point.

 

Most people complaining about this story would still complain about it if it was labeled as "opinion". People scream about "bias" no matter what. And if you really believe the article lacked adequate proof and reasoning to support its thesis as a news article, why would you suddenly be OK with it if it was labeled opinion?

 

It wouldn't be but I know it is the writers opinion and not necessarily The Times

 

A cheap shot is a cheap shot no matter how it's labeled.

 

Reporters aren't there to wave the flag for Lolo. Except, of course, for NBC.

 

I didn't like the article and I didn't like the way it was presented.

There's no limit on the number of ways something can be shitty.

 

It definitely should have been labeled "On Track," by The New York Times' standards.

 

It doesn't, but it should if Longman had done a better job. There were excellent points to be made in the piece he was writing, but he was too busy attacking Jones to make them.

Has the reaction been overkill? Absolutely. Hers and those of others. But Longman deserved some criticism for this one. If you're going to write something that pisses people off, that's part of the job. But when you do, you better be doing it well and he didn't.

 

Jones in the news again this week: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/06/17/lolo-jones-comment-rankles-some-bobsledders/2432985/

And today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/06/22/brianna-rollins-lolo-jones-100-hurdles-us-track-field-championships/2449401/