Type in "Gerald Walpin" in the search engines of the New York Daily News and the New York Times and you get, well, nothing.
The New York Post, in contrast, has a couple of references to him.
In some circles, what Mr. Walpin has to say, seems like a pretty important deal.
One could conclude that the Daily News and the Times are running interference for the President since Mr. Walpin is highly critical of the man who fired him.
Some may miss the era of the big city newspaper when it comes. (And it will come.)
I won't.
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Betting on Mike
The New York Daily News certainly has a lot of faith in Mike Lupica. Because his "take" on the topic du jour is usually advertised on either the front or the back of the paper.
Decades ago, Lupica was an interesting read. His love of sports was infused in his writing. He did an admirable job replacing the legendary Dick Young's omnibus Sunday column when Young bolted to the New York Post. He was even big enough to let his readers have the last laugh when he published some of their more pithier comments.
Yet that all changed somehow.
He's become jaded -- big time. He doesn't cerebrate sports as much as he berates the athletes and executives who make it happen. Who wants to read that over and over?
If you have read any of his anti-Bonds, anti-A-Rod, or anti-Isiah Thomas jeremiads, you have read them all.
His Sunday (ostensibly sports) column is riddled with anti-conservative jabs. Hey, there's a place for that -- but if I wanted to read politics, I'd go to the front pages. Tellingly, he no longer has space for his reader's comments.
Now Lupica passes off conventional liberal thinking on the front pages every Monday in the imaginatively entitled "Monday with Mike" column. You can go through a month of them and you'll be hard pressed to find an original thought. Like his sports columns, he's got his his heroes and rogues. On Mondays, he is reflexively pro-Obama and anti, well, just about anyone who isn't Obama. It may please his liberal readers but it still doesn't make for an interesting read.
So why the big push?
Seems to be that the New York Daily News is becoming a daily tabloid form of Newsweek. Less news -- ESPN has cornered that market -- and more commentary. It may sell. Then again, it may not.
With the departure of Jimmy Breslin years ago, the Daily News lost its best (and Pulitzer Prize winning) journalist. Their other columnists, well, "bland" would be considered a step up.
So the News is betting on its big dog to come through for them. (Hey, there may be an award or two in it for Lupica as well -- that would certainly be a capstone for a long life in sportswriting.)
Unfortunately, though, the big dog lost his bark a long time ago.
Decades ago, Lupica was an interesting read. His love of sports was infused in his writing. He did an admirable job replacing the legendary Dick Young's omnibus Sunday column when Young bolted to the New York Post. He was even big enough to let his readers have the last laugh when he published some of their more pithier comments.
Yet that all changed somehow.
He's become jaded -- big time. He doesn't cerebrate sports as much as he berates the athletes and executives who make it happen. Who wants to read that over and over?
If you have read any of his anti-Bonds, anti-A-Rod, or anti-Isiah Thomas jeremiads, you have read them all.
His Sunday (ostensibly sports) column is riddled with anti-conservative jabs. Hey, there's a place for that -- but if I wanted to read politics, I'd go to the front pages. Tellingly, he no longer has space for his reader's comments.
Now Lupica passes off conventional liberal thinking on the front pages every Monday in the imaginatively entitled "Monday with Mike" column. You can go through a month of them and you'll be hard pressed to find an original thought. Like his sports columns, he's got his his heroes and rogues. On Mondays, he is reflexively pro-Obama and anti, well, just about anyone who isn't Obama. It may please his liberal readers but it still doesn't make for an interesting read.
So why the big push?
Seems to be that the New York Daily News is becoming a daily tabloid form of Newsweek. Less news -- ESPN has cornered that market -- and more commentary. It may sell. Then again, it may not.
With the departure of Jimmy Breslin years ago, the Daily News lost its best (and Pulitzer Prize winning) journalist. Their other columnists, well, "bland" would be considered a step up.
So the News is betting on its big dog to come through for them. (Hey, there may be an award or two in it for Lupica as well -- that would certainly be a capstone for a long life in sportswriting.)
Unfortunately, though, the big dog lost his bark a long time ago.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Media in a Nutshell
Years ago, a mild mannered reporter for a large metropolitan paper spoke to me (and hundreds of others) about the press. He started his discussion by talking about how journalists are lazy, undisciplined, biased, sloppy and a few other choice adjectives. He then paused. Someone from the back said, "Keep going."
Let me keep going.
I swore off network news years ago. It wasn't due to any perception of bias. (It was there; it was less of an issue over the fact that a nightly broacast was 1/3 actual news and 2/3 features. After a while, one tires of hearing the same story about a miracle drug that is 5-10 years from being marketed.)
I hardly read the papers. Growing up, I read the New York Daily News religiously. The poor executives at the NYDN don't know what they are marketing -- a serious city paper or something to rival a Fleet Street rag. The editorials are written as if they are sermons from the mount while page 3 has the lastest fashion trends. Curiously, as the NYDN becomes silly, the New York Post has become, well, more serious. Worst yet, it's a better read. The NYDN may have several columnists but they all say the same thing.
Back in the day, I craved the Sunday talk shows. Granted it was a little more than recycled sound bites but it was interesting nonetheless.
However, I have come to the conclusion that the media no longer cares about the audience or more precisely -- me. (Plunging ratings and circulation numbers don't happen in a vacuum.) No, rather they are more concerned about keeping themselves amused. Harp on McCain and Palin's supposed gaffes; ignore the Iraq War, it's going too well; skimp on the coverage that blames the liberals for their role in the economic mess. You get the idea.
Moreover, everyone thinks I'm entitled to their opinion. I used to read Mike Lupica for sports -- not to bash Bush. I read Mens Health for fitness tips; not to read about how swell Obama is; and there's no end to Fox-bashing throughout the New York Times. Maybe there is an audience for this type of thing -- it's certainly not me.
Take MSNBC and Newsweek. Earlier today, the morning news host interviewed a junior reporter about the magazine's latest presidential poll. Obama is leading by 13 or so points. Both the host and the reporter were at pains to mention that this poll was consistent with a host of others. (Well, that was actual news to me.)
The narrative that they want to believe is that Obama will win (and more importantly signify a rejection of Bush -- whether that's important or not, I will defer to posterity).
If they wanted to do the audience a service -- then they would explain the volatility of the polls. Furthermore, they would have reminded the audience that the polls are a snapshot in time and are not stone cold locks regarding who is going to win. (Remember Obama's victory in New Hampshire? Neither do I but it was a stone cold lock.)
Like sports fans who are happy to see their football team with a big lead at the end of the third quarter, they just rejoiced about how Obama is coasting to victory.
Click.
Let me keep going.
I swore off network news years ago. It wasn't due to any perception of bias. (It was there; it was less of an issue over the fact that a nightly broacast was 1/3 actual news and 2/3 features. After a while, one tires of hearing the same story about a miracle drug that is 5-10 years from being marketed.)
I hardly read the papers. Growing up, I read the New York Daily News religiously. The poor executives at the NYDN don't know what they are marketing -- a serious city paper or something to rival a Fleet Street rag. The editorials are written as if they are sermons from the mount while page 3 has the lastest fashion trends. Curiously, as the NYDN becomes silly, the New York Post has become, well, more serious. Worst yet, it's a better read. The NYDN may have several columnists but they all say the same thing.
Back in the day, I craved the Sunday talk shows. Granted it was a little more than recycled sound bites but it was interesting nonetheless.
However, I have come to the conclusion that the media no longer cares about the audience or more precisely -- me. (Plunging ratings and circulation numbers don't happen in a vacuum.) No, rather they are more concerned about keeping themselves amused. Harp on McCain and Palin's supposed gaffes; ignore the Iraq War, it's going too well; skimp on the coverage that blames the liberals for their role in the economic mess. You get the idea.
Moreover, everyone thinks I'm entitled to their opinion. I used to read Mike Lupica for sports -- not to bash Bush. I read Mens Health for fitness tips; not to read about how swell Obama is; and there's no end to Fox-bashing throughout the New York Times. Maybe there is an audience for this type of thing -- it's certainly not me.
Take MSNBC and Newsweek. Earlier today, the morning news host interviewed a junior reporter about the magazine's latest presidential poll. Obama is leading by 13 or so points. Both the host and the reporter were at pains to mention that this poll was consistent with a host of others. (Well, that was actual news to me.)
The narrative that they want to believe is that Obama will win (and more importantly signify a rejection of Bush -- whether that's important or not, I will defer to posterity).
If they wanted to do the audience a service -- then they would explain the volatility of the polls. Furthermore, they would have reminded the audience that the polls are a snapshot in time and are not stone cold locks regarding who is going to win. (Remember Obama's victory in New Hampshire? Neither do I but it was a stone cold lock.)
Like sports fans who are happy to see their football team with a big lead at the end of the third quarter, they just rejoiced about how Obama is coasting to victory.
Click.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)