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.