I occasionally read this column when the headline catches my attention, and numerous times the author has brought up good points, only to have them be quite short and easy for people to skip over.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100105&sportCat=nfl
Today he discusses two issues that I think are worthy of discussion, under the following headings:
Do Coaches Need To Be Coached?
Newspapers -- To Survive, Ignite Corporate Controversies That Require Image Advertising
I think the former applies to the discussion we had previously on the violence of sport in America, specifically in regards to Jarrod's comment that football in its current form is likely due to change in the near future, and this may be a big part of it. Considering the discussion on concussions, I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention than it has. I think his section on this should've been enlarged to an entire column and put on the front page.
The latter is an issue I hadn't fully considered. He's mostly just saying that newspapers have benefitted from controversial issues over the last year (mostly health care reform). But how much of a role do they play in the formation of these controversies?
Finally, to get back to the title of the post, I just looked the author up on Wikipedia, and he's actually the editor of the New Republic, and writes frequently on space and environmental topics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Easterbrook
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wow, you read my mind. Today he had an article on whether or not the Jets making the playoffs was a big conspiracy. I read a few lines and he made a reference to “The Trystero” (secret organization in a Thomas Pynchon novel The crying of lot 49) and I was surprised a sports guy would read Thomas Pynchon. I continued reading and he really does stray from sports a lot and make good points.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the newspaper bit, I wrote a post titled “New directions for educators at the U” referencing an op-ed in the Star Tribune that was very controversial. Many in the education department that I spoke to were upset that the Star Tribune would publish such an op-ed and I told them to ask themselves which news outlet was doing the best right now despite the recession. The response (truth) is FoxNews. Why? Because they are controversial. They consistently spin their news to be the Zenith vs. the Nadir. I think newspapers that are struggling to survive are adopting this model. I told this to the disgruntled educators and then asked them if they would be keeping up with the story (response by the U, etc.) via the Star Tribune’s website or newspaper, and undoubtedly they said, “yes”.
There you go. The editor essentially created the controversy by allowing the op-ed to be published. I’m pretty sure I could send in an op-ed claiming babies are carcinogenic and they would run it (okay, maybe not, but you get my point).