Jones/ESPNMAG

[joe]

Um, Sweet Baby Jones hasn't been around here for a month. I believe he's got other things to concentrate on than whether his ship smells sweet.

 

[93Devil]

Oh well, while I'm here I might as well jump in. The folks who think ESPN Mag sucks because of all the hip-hop graphics and whatnot are probably still reeling from its early incarnation and will always find fault with a publication that is design and photo heavy. In truth, the front of that mag is way better and meatier than it used to be and the features are as strong as anything you'll see in SI, and they're often way more useful. I think it's a smart rag. Smarter still for adding Jones to a roster with Thompson, Keown, Fleming and Wickersham. If you disagree, fine. But of all the ESPN properties, the magazine is the one with the most independent voice. If you let one Stu Scott sidebar kill that for you, then good luck finding your way out of the forest.

Explain the graphs and pie charts to me they love so much.

Explain the fold out that was last year's NFL Draft preview.

 

[beeranyone]

Oh well, while I'm here I might as well jump in. The folks who think ESPN Mag sucks because of all the hip-hop graphics and whatnot are probably still reeling from its early incarnation and will always find fault with a publication that is design and photo heavy. In truth, the front of that mag is way better and meatier than it used to be and the features are as strong as anything you'll see in SI, and they're often way more useful. I think it's a smart rag. Smarter still for adding Jones to a roster with Thompson, Keown, Fleming and Wickersham. If you disagree, fine. But of all the ESPN properties, the magazine is the one with the most independent voice. If you let one Stu Scott sidebar kill that for you, then good luck finding your way out of the forest.

Explain the graphs and pie charts to me they love so much.

Explain the fold out that was last year's NFL Draft preview.

Easy 93, you mistake me for the maker of that magazine. But my best guess is that they are charts and graphs, designed to convey information. Fold outs, well, it's probably something that folds out that has information on it as well. A time-honored magazine tradition that any magazine editor would be dying to get the chance to do these days (my place of work hasn't had one in years thanks to no ad support.).

I'm not saying everyone has to like that magazine. Those who want the New Yorker for sports, aren't going to be into it. Those who pine for the SI of a decade ago will be disappointed. But I think it has doses of each, along with other stuff (like charts! and graphs!) they do well. If you're not into it, no biggie. But most of the editors I know admire it for the multitude of things they do well. Alls I'm sayin'.

 

[Boom_70]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

Fenian -- The National Review is looking for a writer to do story on the postive things that Bush accomplished in his 8 years. It pays $20,000 plus expenses. Interested? I have some connections there. PM me.

 

[beeranyone]

huh?

 

[93Devil]

Oh well, while I'm here I might as well jump in. The folks who think ESPN Mag sucks because of all the hip-hop graphics and whatnot are probably still reeling from its early incarnation and will always find fault with a publication that is design and photo heavy. In truth, the front of that mag is way better and meatier than it used to be and the features are as strong as anything you'll see in SI, and they're often way more useful. I think it's a smart rag. Smarter still for adding Jones to a roster with Thompson, Keown, Fleming and Wickersham. If you disagree, fine. But of all the ESPN properties, the magazine is the one with the most independent voice. If you let one Stu Scott sidebar kill that for you, then good luck finding your way out of the forest.

Explain the graphs and pie charts to me they love so much.

Explain the fold out that was last year's NFL Draft preview.

Easy 93, you mistake me for the maker of that magazine. But my best guess is that they are charts and graphs, designed to convey information. Fold outs, well, it's probably something that folds out that has information on it as well. A time-honored magazine tradition that any magazine editor would be dying to get the chance to do these days (my place of work hasn't had one in years thanks to no ad support.).

I'm not saying everyone has to like that magazine. Those who want the New Yorker for sports, aren't going to be into it. Those who pine for the SI of a decade ago will be disappointed. But I think it has doses of each, along with other stuff (like charts! and graphs!) they do well. If you're into it, no biggie. But most of the editors I know admire it for the multitude of things they do well. Alls I'm sayin'.

I know you are not the designer or publisher, but some of the graphics and things they attempt are not legible by the highest of educated readers.

 

[Dickens Cider]

huh?

Boom was trying to further his point that he thinks Jones prostituted himself to ESPN The Mag by asking Fenian (who loathes President Stupid) if he would do the same for $20K. I don't agree with Boom's central premise vis a vis Jones, but that's what he was trying to say.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Boomer.

 

[JayFarrar]

This thread makes me sad.
Boom's bomb throwing is silly and Jones took a sophisticated approach to writing a year ender. Taking two unconnected things and weaving them together.
It was, as if, Jones had stolen a page from the New Yorkers big book o' writing and used an approach that magazine has perfected.

 

[lono]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

Fenian -- The National Review is looking for a writer to do story on the postive things that Bush accomplished in his 8 years. It pays $20,000 plus expenses. Interested? I have some connections there. PM me.

That's awfully good pay for a 250-word feature.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

I felt like I needed a good detox tank the last time I picked up ESPNtM. The magazine is aggressively bad.

 

[friend of the friendless]

70,

Sirs, Madames,

Threads like this make a case for membership by application. It's one thing to have some honest criticism from peers, anyone ranging from jg to a kid working at some Dust Bowl weekly. Or even a kid in j-school. But to have some drive-by shooting from a sj-hating troll who writes about "the media elites" is a bit much. I don't mind having pieces ship on--it has happened here and it will happen again. I have no problem with it so long as it's honest, industry criticism. And if peers want to ship on espn, knock yourselves out. Tell it here or to the ombudsman, make my day. But the lurker not-in-the-biz troll trashing those who toil and take pride in what they do and have put in years to get to their place in the game ... that isn't just tiresome. It's not an ashault on the writer. It's an ashault on the readers here. It's an ashault on the site.

o-<

It seems like you are are suggesting that readers are not allowed to criticize.

If you like a story send heaps of praise, If you don't like it then tough.

See, you're not reading closely enough ... again.

Readers have comment boxes on newspaper and magazine sites to throw their uninformed grenades into. If you are a reader and non-peer and have strongly felt opinions, send something in to the letters page. Read-only for non-SJs, I'd have no problem with. SJ would be great for peer review, the stuff of the Workshop. The unfortunate effect of having non-biz people flaming all over the place is that it drags the site into disrepute. It doesn't represent us. It's like having naturopath quacks and some guy from the health-food store commemting on the AMA site. A professional site.

o-<

 

[Desk Grunt]

I don't post here often (obviously) and it's been a looong time since I have, but this thread sparked my interest again. This thread isn't why I hate this site, it's why I love it; the debate, the discussing the craft, etc ...

I thought Jones' story was really good. I think he's a tremendous writer. Was I surprised to see his byline in The Mag? I was. In fact, my first thought was, "Chris Jones writing for ESPN? Weird ... must be a different Chris Jones."

However, to criticize him for taking that kind of job is outrageous. We can debate whether The Mag is complete dreck or whether it's actually under-rated, but the fact is, it's one of the top national sports magazines around. Period. My opinion is it's vastly underrated. You get away from Stu's conversation and the Mikes, and there is a ton of good writing. Just like every other magazine on the stands, there is good stuff and there is crap.

But to pound on a guy for accepting to write a high-profile piece for a high-profile magazine is ridiculous. To pound on him for maybe wanting to introduce his byline to a new set of readers is crazy.

I'm sure, given the opportunity, nobody on this board would have pashed on the chance to do that story. But because he's The Jones, we expect him to say "Nah, I'm too good to come down from on high to write for such a simple-minded publication ... one that just so happens to be publishing some of the best writing around these days."