I consider myself to be somewhat of a sports nut. I absolutely live, breathe, and die ice hockey, but I am still fond of sports like football, baseball, and ultimate (frisbee). So when #loweclass assigned Week 1 of the NFL season for the blog post, I was excited to see what a news website without a football team would cover the week.
And I found it to be very interesting.
Looking at the Los Angeles Times late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, I found very little mentioning of the NFL. The biggest story was the rift the national media created between Tim Tebow and Mark Sanchez. What I found very interesting was that the Times had a story from New York on their sports page. I know that Tebow and Sanchez are two polarizing personas in the football world, but does the Times really need to be catering to a story that is more than 3000 miles away?
During the games, there was very little updates coming from the Times' website. I also went to my favorite sports website, Bleacher Report, where there was a constant updated blog from the entire NFL lead writer team. I would think that a prominent news site would want to cover the NFL as much as possible, but instead there was very little going on during the games.
I decided to go back and visit the Times Sunday night, and on the sports homepage I was surprised what I saw. The main headline was Serena Williams winning her fourth U.S. Open title. The first NFL story on the website was of Robert Griffin III leading the Washington Redskins to upset the New Orleans Saints. Again, the Washington Redskins, an east coast team. No mention of the San Francisco 49ers defeating the Green Bay Packers.
The Times is arguably the biggest news source on the west coast, and the biggest sports organization in the world received little coverage. Perhaps the Times would cover the NFL more if the St. Louis Rams would move back to LA. But for a news site with three NFL teams in southern California, I would think the TImes would have covered Week 1 of the NFL a bit more than it did.
And I found it to be very interesting.
Looking at the Los Angeles Times late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, I found very little mentioning of the NFL. The biggest story was the rift the national media created between Tim Tebow and Mark Sanchez. What I found very interesting was that the Times had a story from New York on their sports page. I know that Tebow and Sanchez are two polarizing personas in the football world, but does the Times really need to be catering to a story that is more than 3000 miles away?
During the games, there was very little updates coming from the Times' website. I also went to my favorite sports website, Bleacher Report, where there was a constant updated blog from the entire NFL lead writer team. I would think that a prominent news site would want to cover the NFL as much as possible, but instead there was very little going on during the games.
I decided to go back and visit the Times Sunday night, and on the sports homepage I was surprised what I saw. The main headline was Serena Williams winning her fourth U.S. Open title. The first NFL story on the website was of Robert Griffin III leading the Washington Redskins to upset the New Orleans Saints. Again, the Washington Redskins, an east coast team. No mention of the San Francisco 49ers defeating the Green Bay Packers.
The Times is arguably the biggest news source on the west coast, and the biggest sports organization in the world received little coverage. Perhaps the Times would cover the NFL more if the St. Louis Rams would move back to LA. But for a news site with three NFL teams in southern California, I would think the TImes would have covered Week 1 of the NFL a bit more than it did.
RSS Feed