TBL talks to Karen Crouse

Why didn't you say so in the first place? Goodbye.

 

I've made no secret of that in the past, Smasher. And I think the fact that I've worked with her in a desk-writer way and want to defend her should tell you a lot, if you want to be intellectually honest. Desk types usually don't rush to the defense of writers who are lazy, difficult to work with, miss important things in their stories, file late, etc. I wouldn't take such a strident, contrarian stance on these threads unless I was dead certain I'm right ... and you aren't.

 

The interview is ponderous at best. Karen Crouse was not the Jets beat writer for this past season. How come there were no questions about the change to Greg Bishop.

Karen's beat coverage of the Jets in 2006 has been a well discussed topic at SJ. It's accurate to say the Jets were covered like they were a Lifetime network story.

It would be one thing if the Giants were covered in the same manner but they were not. While John Branch was writing about the vagaries of Cover 2, Karen was telling us about Nick Mangold's 300 pound sister who played offensive tackle.

How could we forget Karen's memorable redemption story on Ricky Manning where she mentioned the "unfortunate incident " at Denny's but failed to mention that Manning confronted the victim with "Are you a faggot?", "You f---ing Jew," and then called him "an ugly f---ing Jew" and a "faggot." The victim asked to be left alone and the football players beat him unconscious. Or her redemption story on Tank Johnson with many key elements left out to the point that the Times had to issue corrections.

 

The idea that somebody might look at the team from a different perspective than me -- or even that they might write something to appeal to someone other than a drunken, face-painting, talk-show caller -- really doesn't bother me a whole lot.
I'm a beat writer. A lot of my coverage is conventional. But if I see somebody doing it another way, I don't feel like I need to burn them for a witch.

 

certainly agree with that. which again begs the question: was karen made to feel unwelcomed in the jets press room because she covered the beat in a, um, unique way? or because she treated others in a standoffish way? any insiders here? bueller? bueller? ??? ??? ???

 

Of course you're already assuming facts not in evidence that you're asking the insiders about.

 

Forgive me, I don't maintain an archive of your posts.

I don't think lazy and late and difficult to work with were issues in this discussion at all. Why would I care if her copy was late or if she didn't get along with the desk? I'm talking about whether the coverage is relevant for the reader, which is pretty much the reason we write.

 

please explain, dools.

 

Coverage was not relivant for the reader. I first raised the point here in 2006. Here is link :

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/34762/

 

Don't pull a Guy Incognito here. Your phraseology is taking as a given that she was not welcomed in the press room, and a given that she treated others in a standoffish way.

The unloaded way to ask the insiders (assuming you're not one who is playing possum) is to say, "Was Karen welcomed in the press room?" and "How does she treat others?"

 

Just out of curiosity, Smasher -- how do you know readers' eyes glaze over when you give them something different? Did you ask everyone in your circulation area?

 

Yes, I did.