SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Hard to believe that a New York paper has given us an unexpected and uplifting look into the character of Bill Belichick that most people don't know anything about.
It's the New York Times, an actual newspaper that does actual research and has actual reporters. If the Post did a piece on BB, it would just be one giant headline "CHEATRIOT" or something like that. It's like comparing filet mignon to a hot pocket.
Great article.
Why's that? I have found Rhoden to be fair and objective, at least when I've seen him on the Sports Reporters.Hard to believe Bill Rhoden wrote that.
I agree, we can not lump the "New York Media" together. The New York Times is probably the highest quality newspaper in the county. It makes the Boston Globe look like a hometown rag. The Post on the other hand is a paper that makes the National Inquirer look good.
We all know there is a huge gap between the journalism at the Globe and the Herald. The gap between the Times and the Post is 100 times greater.
It's the New York Times, an actual newspaper that does actual research and has actual reporters. If the Post did a piece on BB, it would just be one giant headline "CHEATRIOT" or something like that. It's like comparing filet mignon to a hot pocket.
Great article.
Plus, the Times is not at all known as a "sports paper".
Absolutely. The sports desk at the Times is very different from local papers. (And the NY Post is definitely a local, hometown paper -- it's just a very big hometown.) If you want all the scoop on your favorite teams and their players, intensive breakdowns of each game, etc., the Times will not deliver. They treat sports exactly the same as other subjects. That's not great for day-to-day NYC sports fanhood, but great for occasional thoughtful, in-depth reportage.