TBL talks to Karen Crouse

You'd want to remain anonymous too if you were a fucking fraud.

 

I still haven't figured out why these Crouse threads are so divisive. Did someone lose a bet because they missed a notebook item on a sore hamstring? Did someone get passed over for a job? Crazy.

 

I don't ever recall anyone questioning whether Karen was a nice person or a hard worker or a quality writer.

The issue, which seems to have tentacles at this point, was whether the Times had sacrificed (my word) typical Jets beat coverage for personality pieces that were more emotional and dramatic than football-esque.

It's just a discussion. Why anyone has to be 'right' and 'pissy' about it is just bizarre.

Love that TBL has no clue she isn't even on the beat any more, and REALLY love the comments from readers there, slamming him for the hypocrisy of treating women like garbage every day, except when one grants him an interview.

 

I think if someone is going to criticize a writer's work, he ought to at least investigate the facts before popping off, that's why. Not assume because there was a story about Holly Mangold that it means a better story was missed. Not assume that because a writer is not on a beat anymore that it means the writer's work was judged to be subpar. You, umm, look into it. You are a journalist, aren't you? Well, them's the rules we play by. If someone wants to ignore that and doesn't like being called on it, the answer is simple: Go somewhere else.

 

If you're referring to your surreal debate with Smasher yesterday, it seemed pretty clear he was making a broad statement about coverage in general. Not about one day on the calendar.

If you're referring generally to these recurrent threads about Karen Crouse and the Times, your refusal to allow an opinion other than yours is just, I don't know, weird. Writing is subjective. Readers have opinions. This is a message board where people voice those opinions. I don't know why we all have to keep going to the mat over this.

 

I've defended other writers, taking an unpopular stance in some cases. I usually stay out of the Albom debates because I haven't worked with him, don't live in Detroit and don't read him enough anymore. But if I have firsthand experience that I can contribute, I'm going to do it, and I don't especially care whether you like it, 21. All I've seen from you on these threads is some attempt to defend Boom's right to rant about things he knows nothing about. I've seen nothing of substance from you about Crouse's work in specifics, pro or con. So, why don't you tell us what you think about it instead of trying to appoint yourself as moderator?

 

Read the cretinous "she looks like a guy" dipshittery in the "comments" at the end of that TBL interview...

That insecurity certainly also rears its noggin over here, too.

Relating it to this presidential race of ours.... being black and intelligent doesn't hold a candle to being a woman with similar mental capacity.

One of the two threatens the good-ol-boy network FAR more than the other.

John Lennon, as usual, had it right... by leaps and bounds.

 

If anyone has attempted to moderate this topic, it's you, from the start, when you decided who was and wasn't qualified to have an opinion.

Boom doesn't need me to support or defend his posts here, and I'm quite capable of advancing my own opinions without tagging onto his. I don't regularly follow the Times' coverage of the Jets, and therefore have no real opinion about how Crouse handled it.

I don't think there absolutes in reporting or writing. The majority of people on this board have a beef with Lupica and/or Albom, for example, but plenty of folks out there must like what they're doing. Are they right? Wrong? It's subjective. That's all I'm saying, and all I have left to say on this overblown topic.

 

methinks mr. ridgeway needs to recuse himself from anything crouse- related. frank, it seems you're way too close to the subject. i view this board as largely a place for us to discuss the pros and cons of subjects. the way karen opted to cover the beat and the way the times allowed her to cover the beat is a terrific topic. as is the way the paper has covered the beat since she's moved on.

karen obviously has oodles of backers here. but only those who worked on the jets beat with her would know if she behaved in a standoffish, above-it-all fashion. or have to look at themselves in the mirror to decide if their attitude pushed her to seem that way to them.

it's never an easy transition to go from a columnist somewhere to a beat writer. pennington pulled it off fairly seamlessly for the times. my opinion is, while karen did some excellent pieces -- i.e. coles -- jets fans weren't necessarily well-served by her on a day-to-day basis. nothing personal. just my opinion.

and frank, you start up with 21, you can add me to your enemies list. gotta chill, bro.

 

Frank my original complaint was about the coverage. In fact if you look back I did not even mention Karen's name.

You are the one who made it about Karen.

 

You have far more reason to recuse yourself from this topic than I do. Not your call on what I do, anyway.

We disagree on Crouse, we've disagreed on Lupica, and that's fine. I think I was the first, or one of the first, to attack the "Leon Carter is a sexist" theory and, hey, I turned out to be right. It was not a popular stance, but if I see people attacked for bullshit reasons and I can do something about it, I will.

As for arguing with 21, don't be absurd. Spnited's been at it for years and you don't seem to have a problem with it, so cut the crappola.

 

you guys must have a Frank decoder ring I didn't get in the Cracker Jack....