TBL talks to Karen Crouse

If you get a chance, read through the debate that the commentors are having about whether or not they should be allowed to make mean, shitty comments about Crouse's physical appearance. It cuts right to the heart of why I can't understand why journalists are willing to do interviews with this blog.

TBL: It's is acceptable to comment on the physical appearance of all women, just not in this post!

Readers: Booooooooooooo!

TBL: Ok, it is not acceptable to comment on the physical appearance of any women!

Readers: Booooooooooooo!

TBL: Ok, Objectification for some women, email interviews and respect paid toothers!

Readers: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah! (Wait a minute....) Booooooooooooo!

 

Given their demos, the Times can afford to take that slant.

At least, in a multi-newspaper town, the consumer has a choice.

On Monday-night football, non-football fluff is forced down the viewers' throats, as the
core viewership is taken for granted in quest of the marginal "casual" viewer.

 

Absolutely. Columnists enjoy this luxury.

 

In a one newspaper town, that's probably true. In New York, the diehards are already getting their red meat coverage - especially of the Jets, the city's blue-collar team - from the Daily News and the Post.

Do you think the Times would have experimented with the nature of their Jets beat coverage if they didn't already have a sense of that?

 

That would make sense if the same philosophy applied to the other beats. It doesn't.

 

But the Times figures Giants fans read the Times - and they do, because the Giants are New York's white collar football team. All the other franchises in town have pretty well-mixed fan bases. There are as many arbitrageurs and investment bankers at Yankees and Knicks and Rangers games as there pipefitters and UPS drivers.

The Times isn't ceding red meat sports coverage to the tabs - it's ceding red meat Jets coverage.

 

I'll give TBL the benefit of the doubt on that. I mean, it's not like he tries to attract lunkheads just looking to leer at half-naked women.

 

No, never.

 

No doubt these conclusions are based on extensive demographic research.

 

I can never understand why the Times choice to cover the Jets a little differently so pisses people off on this board. Don't they cover everything a little differently? That's what makes them the Times. Tyler Keppner doesn't write stories like George King. It's an outrage!

 

I'm not saying the Time is right. I'm simply trying to identify the impulse behind the experiment.

 

In all seriousness, even if I concede that "fans want to know why the Jets are losing or whether they can keep winning," and to an extent I do, exactly how much real estate does it take to tell them that and how often? I think that ought to be taken care of in the game story in Monday's paper, unless you're telling me that the gamer ought to be play-by-play. Otherwise, it gets pretty monotonous reading rehash/preview all week. There is seldom much happening with an NFL team during the week that can't be reduced to notes, so I really don't see what's wrong with not reacting to the talk-radio idiots and giving us some insights into what makes these people tick.