TBL talks to Karen Crouse

Perhaps because you have yet to make a post on this thread, Shock, in which you don't insult her.

 

Don't call her stuff "unreadable crap," then say "karen's an obviously talented writer interested greatly in the human condition." Be true to your venom. Call her a hack; that's how you clearly feel.

But you must be pooped, polling the millions of Jets fans to get the consensus that she worked the beat "with such little regard for the readers who truly love the game or the team they cover."

 

from what i can recall, i've gone out of my way to praise karen as a writer. but it seems her legion of crouse-ites won't accept anything less than unabashed hero worship and awe. sorry, boys and girls, but i thought she was ill-suited for the jets beat. and i don't believe either karen or the times disagrees.

hopefully, karen's followers can forgive me my sin.

 

many a gifted writer pen unreadable crap. see: lupica, mike. i don't think karen's a "hack," by any means. just occasionally misguided.

also sorry if my polling methods don't satisfy you, dools. if 25 years covering the nfl isn't enough to give me at least a hint of what football readers would like in their coverage, i guess it is time to call it quits. but i'll be damned if karen's way is the wave of the future.

but what the heck do i know? i'm just a bitter ol' hack, i guess. better off genuflecting at the altar of crouse.

 

As if any of the schmoes who kept Cris Carter out of the Hall could answer that, much less write it.

 

Dad?

 

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

I have never met Karen. She is past my time in the business, at least the NFL part. Speaking as a reader, I thought she did a good job on the Jets, considering that as a reader I do not buy the Times for beat nuts and bolts stuff on NYC sports teams. That's what the tabloids are for.
Now that's not always true. Sometimes Times guys are the beat lions (see Wise, Mike), but by and large, what Karen did was what the Times national readership, which economically is its most important readership, likes.

 

If I don't care about the nuts and bolts of the New York Jets, why do I care that one of their players has a mother who was in jail?

And why would the Times cater its Jets coverage to the national audience?

 

because it is a national paper

 

bingo. the jets aren't nearly the "national" team the yankees or giants are.

only one reason the jets were treated as such: karen insisted it be that way and jolly agreed, jets fans be damned. i don't agree for a second with this high-brow approach that the times, as a national paper, covers n.y. teams differently. they don't. they just did in this particular instance.

karen moved on. bravo for her. sincerely. everything i've heard regarding the move it was welcomed by her. was jolly thrilled by how she covered the jets? it wouldn't seem so. greg bishop is much closer to the norm than karen was. in the long run, karen's tenure on the jets will be a blip on the radar screen.

 

And the national readers are after Jets coverage?