Times - Jet/ Giant Beat Coverage

I truly wish the selective editing would end. The phrase, as someone told me, is fly in the sugar bowl. It has since been corrected. For some reason, my explanation keeps geting editied but the Oreo reference remain.
The Times goes after the intellectual whitecollar reader. Always has. It never got down into the tabloid wars with the Post, Daily News and later Newsday. However, there was a time, especially when the National was around, that the Times under Joe Vecchionne as SE, went for the sesational approach. It didn't last and neither did Vechionne.
The Times has such a broad appeal that they don't think local or regional, they think global. That's why the coverage is what it it is. Superior to many but bland to some, it's the Times way.

 

I don't see how you can conclude that. Most people here are saying the NYT gave her a better job and that she took the Jets beat with the understanding that it was temporary.

Further, the NYT knew what it was getting -- this is not some kid who hadn't covered a beat before. There was no shortage of "nuts and bolts" football writers they could have hired instead, including some already on that beat who would have been more than happy to have gone to work for the Times. And if they were bothered by the featurey approach they could have simply told the writer to cover the beat in a more traditional style. That's what editors do -- if the writer isn't delivering the expected work, they coach them to (or order them to) do it a different way.

You have a bug up your ass about this writer and apparently would like to believe that the NYT editors at long last agree with you, but logic says that isn't the case. Because if they had, they would not have gone through two full seasons before making a change, if not in assignments, at least in tone.

 

Frank, there was a reason for the move. People, many good ones, are no longer there. A"t first it was a fill in the blanks kind of deal, now it's tyring to get the most out of what we have deal.
If she was THAT awful, she still wouldn't be collecting a hefty paycheck. Trust me.

 

Why don't we just leave it at "The New York Times always knows best"? Because that's sure how they conduct themselves. Even though, as mentioned previously in this thread, a lot of what they do is pretty darn bland.

 

I wouldn't go that far. The Times has its own agenda and pretty much sets the trend for other papers around the globe.

 

Every newspaper has an agenda, driven by its editorial page.

 

Hockey, what you're saying is true but there arguably isn't a paper in this country with the clout of the Times.

 

I'm not talking about the Times' clout. I understand and recognize their clout.

What I'm saying is that every paper in the country has a political agenda and it is driven by the editorial page. Look at the NY Post and Washington Times and Boston Herald. Those papers have a conservative slant that is born from the editorial pages.

 

Well struck, Frank. And I guess this is at least part of what I was asking about. If the Sports desk at the NYT had been unhappy with the stories Ms. Crouse was filing, they'd have simply spiked them. If they felt they weren't servicing their readership with the kinds of stories she was filing, they'd have simply told her to file different stories.

 

Didn't the deputy sports editor just leave for ESPN? Perhaps she liked Crouse on the Jets beat.

 

That was not the issue. Two entirely separate issues.

 

it was the perfect storm. this was never about the times' vision of jets coverage. the bosses there couldn't care less.

the times wanted crouse, an excellent writer, but not a true football beat person. crouse wanted the n.y. times, and all that cache, and was willing to cover the jets as long as it was known it would be temporary and she could write the kind of stories she likes to write.

both sides sold out a bit here. with all the defections at the times, the opportunity arose to make the move to an area where crouse's talents and the way a sports beat is covered by others at the times -- and most everyone else -- would be served.

rather simple. does anyone not see that the times' jets coverage was waaaay different than the way other sports beats are covered? there was no change in overall philosophy. they changed specifically to appease crouse, which i suppose is a mighty big compliment to her.

just not a big favor to their jets-fan readers, imo.

on that note, i'm bored with this post. you say, "po-tay-toes." i say, "po-tah-toes."