Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All right. Let's start by admitting I am not a follower of sports. So, there are doubtless many little intricacies that I do not know. But this seems strange to me. I did post this at a New York Times sports web site. I do not know if I will get an answer. I tThought to try here also.
As all of you know, last week, the Boston Red Sox were playing against the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series. Well, let's be frank. The Red Sox defeated the Cardinals in the World Series. I subscribe to the Sunday New York Times. I went through the entire Sports section last Sunday and found not one word about the series. There were articles about other historic series where the Red Sox had played but nothing about the current one and not sign of the name "Cardinals".
Today, I again have the New York Time Sports section before me. There is one article about baseball and it talks only of the Red Sox and the Yankees. All right. The Times is in that area. I'd expect to see them talking more about the Yankees than about the Cardinals. But, the Times is pretty much a national, if not international, paper. And the World Series is, I think, a national series. Wouldn't you think there would be some mention of it?
What is it that this sports-illiterate person does not know? It isn't belligerence, I know. I know the New York Times better than that. It's a marvelous paper. So, what goes that the team which played in the Series last week doesn't even get a mention? Not so much as a "Red Sox defeat Cardinals"!
The World Series ended a few days ago. As I'm sure you know, we live in a "now" society. It is old news and people are ready to move on. It also doesn't help that, unlike the NFL, MLB is a regional sport and people don't care too much outside of Boston and St. Louis. I think the series averaged something like 15 million views per game. I would not be surprised at all if close to half of that was from the two teams markets.
The World Series ended a few days ago. As I'm sure you know, we live in a "now" society. It is old news and people are ready to move on. It also doesn't help that, unlike the NFL, MLB is a regional sport and people don't care too much outside of Boston and St. Louis. I think the series averaged something like 15 million views per game. I would not be surprised at all if close to half of that was from the two teams markets.
But it hadn't ended last weekend. I am just curious about it. And there were just enough related articles to make me decide to ask. Not important, I suppose.
Well, at least they did report it. I do not get the weekday paper - only Sunday. I do get NYT email news alerts but never got that. They can't send them all. And why do I expect them to be saying something on the Sunday when the games were still on? They had - if I remember rightly - five articles about the many world series games the Red Sox have won but nary a word about the one they were playing.
All right. I'll stop fretting it. Journalism has its own rules. Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
