1. They raided a lot of local papers (one place they weren't successful was DC, because the Post pays relatively well) and ramped up local coverage. They've since abandoned that.
2. A lot of their other hires were based on cronyism, and that included hiring some rank amateurs. I'm no snob when it comes to people who come in from a blogging background, but some of the hiring there was indefensible.
3. They "break" a ton of news. For a lot of that, give them credit. But breaking news is often based on access that leads to a lot of compromise. A lot of news organizations are criticized because of a perception that they shy away from certain stories because they need to maintain access, but then people forget that the scoops they treasure often come with strings attached as well. What stories aren't being told because a reporter needs to keep some sources happy?
Some of this is unavoidable, or it just happens. I found myself breaking news on occasion over the years just because someone took a liking to me for some reason. And if you have "access," you might as well make the most of it.
Ultimately, it's up to us as readers to support a variety of sources. If we all read nothing but The Athletic -- and I know some communities that are getting close to that -- we'd miss a whole lot of the picture.
Yeah ... really conflicted about this, even though I know I probably shouldn't be. Clearly it's a case of adapt or die, and as you say these changes are most likely long overdue. And not to mention ... it's kind of difficult to feel sorry for the NY or LA Times given how badly they have been managed recently.
But ... I'm an "old", so it's still difficult to see once-great institutions essentially disappear. Sports Monday in the NY Times, back in the day ... that was a big deal and a must-read. So there's some wistful nostalgia for a time gone by, while recognizing that time marches on.
The sports pages we knew and loved have long ago become extinct and irrelevant because of the technological changes you described, as well as other changes in the news business, like shrinking space in print and earlier deadlines. Seems to me that NY Times is once again ahead of the curve as it continues with its mostly successful digital transformation.
A few thoughts about The Athletic:
1. They raided a lot of local papers (one place they weren't successful was DC, because the Post pays relatively well) and ramped up local coverage. They've since abandoned that.
2. A lot of their other hires were based on cronyism, and that included hiring some rank amateurs. I'm no snob when it comes to people who come in from a blogging background, but some of the hiring there was indefensible.
3. They "break" a ton of news. For a lot of that, give them credit. But breaking news is often based on access that leads to a lot of compromise. A lot of news organizations are criticized because of a perception that they shy away from certain stories because they need to maintain access, but then people forget that the scoops they treasure often come with strings attached as well. What stories aren't being told because a reporter needs to keep some sources happy?
Some of this is unavoidable, or it just happens. I found myself breaking news on occasion over the years just because someone took a liking to me for some reason. And if you have "access," you might as well make the most of it.
Ultimately, it's up to us as readers to support a variety of sources. If we all read nothing but The Athletic -- and I know some communities that are getting close to that -- we'd miss a whole lot of the picture.
Yeah ... really conflicted about this, even though I know I probably shouldn't be. Clearly it's a case of adapt or die, and as you say these changes are most likely long overdue. And not to mention ... it's kind of difficult to feel sorry for the NY or LA Times given how badly they have been managed recently.
But ... I'm an "old", so it's still difficult to see once-great institutions essentially disappear. Sports Monday in the NY Times, back in the day ... that was a big deal and a must-read. So there's some wistful nostalgia for a time gone by, while recognizing that time marches on.
I do miss Off Wing, though :-)
The sports pages we knew and loved have long ago become extinct and irrelevant because of the technological changes you described, as well as other changes in the news business, like shrinking space in print and earlier deadlines. Seems to me that NY Times is once again ahead of the curve as it continues with its mostly successful digital transformation.