Why the New York Times shouldn't bother covering hockey: Example #3872.
(click image for closer look)
The caption, from yesterday's edition, says: "The Rangers' Peter Prucha preparing for a shot..."
If there's one thing that Prucha is NOT doing in this photo, it's preparing to take a shot. Firstly, look at the position of the players on the ice; Prucha is either in his own zone or the neutral zone. Secondly, look at the Penguins' skater to the left; he's looking at the puck—which is not in the vicinity of Prucha's stick—which is the implement used by hockey players to take "shots."
This stupid, lazy mis-captioning of hockey photos is not a rare occurrence at the "national paper of record."
Additionally, their hockey reporters obviously don't know the sport very well, as they often—and I mean OFTEN—wrongly describe how the previous night's goals were scored.
Being a former small-time sports journalist, I know how the American sports reporting system works: low man/woman on the totem pool at major newspapers covers hockey. Still, you're the...
NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES.
previously in NY Times sucks:
1. Nice scoop, Stuart.
2. No, I'm a Ranternista.
3. Page A2 is usually fucking hilarious.
4. Take a trip down Memory Lane (a toll road).
5. Tommy, I think about sex A LOT.
posted by copyranter @ 9:45 AM
15 Comments:
you are so hard on the Times! I love it!
The rangers really suck, so that might actually be an attempted shot.
Actually, it's a very good photo...
Hockey? No surprise there.
These knuckleheads didn't get the run-up to the fuckin' war right!
That's like captioning this photo:
"Tiki Barber of the Giants rushing for six of his 121 yards on Sunday against Dallas."
AND REPEATING THE ERROR EVERY FUCKING DAY ON PAGE ONE, COLUMN EIGHT FOR SIX MONTHS!!!!!
Tom Friedman owes me wet, sloppy blow jobs every Wednesday and Friday for the rest of my life.
Ha, anon. that's some fine red-faced, spittle-spewing anger.
yes, Marj, it is a good photo...captioned IDIOTICALLY.
People still play hockey? Who knew.
The NYT is accurate about 37% of the time anyway. They just pull stuff out of their butts and apply it to paper.
Gothamist shouldn't cover Anna Nicole. And you shouldn't cover sports media. Stick to your strength! Don't make me compare you to Gothamist ever again.
its more likely the fault of the photographer. common to write a generic caption when on dealine that doesnt reflect details of a play. and contrary to other comments the photo sucks
In Boston, we're lucky to have several skilled hockey writers. And unlucky to have one unskilled hockey team.
Um...I see nothing wrong with the caption of that photo. Prucha is positioned directly infront of the Penguins net. How do I know? Well look at the hash marks on the circles, based on that position we can see the photographer is looking width wise across the ice not length wise as you are assuming. Another tell is the goal line that is extended to the boards in the back which is now obviously the corner board. There isn't any vertical lines on any of the pro ice rinks I see.
So Prucha is getting into position in front of the net. The puck is obviously back at the point with the defenseman or with a forward that has drifted back towards the line. I can tell because Crosby is sprinting to the near side of the ice the two other players in the back are coming off the boards rather lazily as if the puck isn't anywhere near them. The defenseman (no. 7) is trying to get himself into position in front of Prucha to disrupt him from getting in front of the net.
In any event they could be taking the shot which Prucha is "preparing for" either to deflect the shot or to pounce on the rebound or even to get out of the way...but there is no mistake that he is in fact "preparing for the shot". He may not be shooting the puck himself as you assume but one doesn't necessarily need to be shooting to prepare for the shot right? I mean what do goalies and defenseman do when there is a shot? Be surprised?
yep Ralph, you're right. on second look, he is in front of the net. that's where my agreement with your comment ends. "preparing for a shot" is wrong. they either mean he is preparing to take a shot, or they need to relearn the fucking English language.
i don't mean to be harsh, ralph, but your comment kinda reminded of one of those enormous red rubber old lady douchebags they used to have around. you know, way to long and serious looking.
Just to set the record straight here, I am a huge fan of shitting on the NY Times, but they've actually been one of the few papers that have been putting out some decent hockey journalism, albeit rarely.
In particular, Jeff Z Klein and Karl Eric Reif's "Sunday Shootout" collumn should be a must-read for every American hockey fan.
Also, I have this post to thank for it, as after reading this, I remembered that I'd read something great in the Times by two guys a while back, so I went back and double-checked, and sure enough, these guys are doing a great job over there, most recently giving readers a brief history of hockey's deep roots in Pittsburgh as far back as 1904, telling your average hockey illiterates that the rookie of the year hunt goes deeper than just Evgeni Malkin and reporting that a Swiss pro team has just joined the ranks of the '75 Isles and '42 Maple Leafs as a pro team who has won a 7 game series after being down 3 games to none.
I know, Swiss league, but still- that's good reporting.
That said, yeah- Prucha is no more preparing for a shot in that picture than I am starting in goal for the Bruins tonight. Which honestly, as well as they've been playing recently they oughta let me do, just as a thank you for actually paying to see that fucking train wreck they called a hockey team this season.
Here's a link to the Times article, but keep up the hate. It works for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/sports/hockey/18hockey.html
Looks like he's preparing for a shot to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home