NYT Obliterates Lolo Jones

Assuming he would follow up properly if she did.

 

She beat out 32 other runners to qualify for the Olympics. That's what she did. Looking at the qualifying times, the other 2 hurdlers are not that much better to be celebrated.

I really expect better from The Times.

 

Lashinda Demus is the reigning world champion in the 400-meter hurdles. Dawn Harper is the 2008 gold medalist and one of the two favorites to win gold here.

I agree that the Times' sports section has slipped a bit over the past year or two. But this piece, individually, was a decent change of pace. It said something. We're often too afraid to say something.

 

Unless Pearson gets hurt, or falls, all the other runners look to be fighting over silver and bronze.

 

What did it say that was so damn profound? I guess I'm not picking up on that.

 

I didn't say it was profound. He said Lolo Jones hasn't warranted the hype. So much Olympic coverage comprises thumb-suckers about U.S. athletes and overly broad strokes on contextualizing great performances. This was a change of pace. It didn't hit all its marks, and it should have been more balanced. But I didn't think it was a bad column.

 

So? Jimmie Johnson has accomplished way more than Jimmie Johnson. Who's more popular?

It's a BS story. If you think Harper's story is better and deserves to be told, tell it. Don't blast Jones for making a living with her story (which is a good one, BTW).

 

Assuming you meant Dale Earnhardt Jr. second, that angle has been broached by NASCAR writers for the past five years. Nate Ryan of USA TODAY wrote a good one this year about Junior's appeal. It's fair game.

 

Oops -- yes, meant Dale Jr. And your second sentence makes my point. This isn't new ground. Popularity is what it is. It isn't always a matter of who's a better/more accomplished athlete. Lolo Jones gets more ink because she's talkative and pretty? Wow, that's never happened before. You want Harper to get more ink? Give it to her. Doesn't mean you have to rip Jones. Should she tell McDonald's, "No, I don't want your money. Give it to Dawn. She deserves it more." Please.

 

The Longman piece doesn't have the courage of its own convictions. It is neither smart enough to be thoughtful, nor sharp enough to be a hatchet job and largely ignores matters of race and appearance and corporate money in favor of a weirdly personal attack on a single athlete.

 

Exactly. We've got an organization (Olympics) that operates the biggest, most extravagant and most profitable athletic competition in the world every four years without compensating the athletes and then further limits their ability to market themselves through Rule 40. Covering that competition for the NY Times, Longman finds it distasteful that one of the athletes has attracted what he considers too much attention/money for herself. Weaker than weak.

 

The piece may not hit you over the head with it, but I think it tells (again, very imperfectly) her story as a means of addressing the issue of sex driving women's sports and why that's a problem. Lolo Jones is getting attention better competitors lack. I don't see how it ignores appearance. I agree that race was ignored, which was a mistake. Her mixed-race background makes her an anomaly among top American sprinters and hurdlers, and it increases her marketability.

But it seems as though many of you are putting too great expectations on a 1,000-word profile. This wasn't a takeout on women, sexuality and sports. And I don't think Longman wanted it to be a rip job, either, even if I certainly see how it came across that way. I think he wanted to, on a small scale, delve into an issue that has a pretty major effect on the Olympics.