23 April, 2014


Case Study in How Hockey Can Be Covered: This Week's Washington Times

We’re posting the sports section fronts, with links,¬†for the Washington Times from each of the last three mornings, as they are¬†the visual equivalent of snazzy billboards beautifully boasting of Washington’s privileged status in the NHL these days. To the Times we say, we want your pixels and your print! ¬†
The Washington Times - 10 October, 2008



The Washington Times - 9 October, 2008

The Washington Times - 9 October, 2008


The Washington Times - 8 October, 2008

The Washington Times - 8 October, 2008



13 Comments

  1. b.orr4 wrote:

    It’s not even close any longer. The Times coverage of hockey far exceeds that of the Post. Tarik does a nice job but it’s clear his editors have little love for the game or the team. You could see it during the preseason when days would pass without a print article on the Caps (something, by the way, that never seems to happen with the Wizards). By comparison, the Times has made it apparent that after the Redskins, the Capitals are the second most important team to them in DC. Part of the problem is that the Times is politically a conservative publication in a mostly liberal metro region and I get the sense that a lot of people can’t bring themselves to be seen buying the paper. But if you’re a true Caps fan, you’ve got to move past those biases and support the paper that supports your team. Just buy the paper and, if you feel strongly about your party affiliation, throw away everything but the sports page. After all, politics should never come before hockey.

    10 October, 2008 at 10:55 am | Permalink
  2. BlueRidgeCapsFan wrote:

    The Post could learn Sooooooo much from the Times. I prefer the Post for everything else but the Times is tops for Caps coverage. All you get out of the Post is abreviated Tarik blog reports. Why do they hate the Caps so? And dont even get me started with hockey coverage for teams outside the DC area it’s nonexistent. Of course I’m preaching to the choir.

    10 October, 2008 at 11:02 am | Permalink
  3. pepper wrote:

    I think you’re right, b.orr4. I believe the Times for years, going back to Dave Fay’s early days, carried a number of subscriptions on the merits of Capitals coverage alone.
    Its pretty clear to me that Tarik loves the game, the team, and his job, but yeah, he’s limited by editors.

    10 October, 2008 at 11:27 am | Permalink
  4. usiel wrote:

    I’ve always liked the times for sports coverage but naturally avoid anything else on the Moony newspaper.

    10 October, 2008 at 11:40 am | Permalink
  5. Wow, that’s some good stuff. Looks like I’ll have to switch my subscriptions. Just imagine what the coverage could be like in April if all goes well.

    10 October, 2008 at 12:14 pm | Permalink
  6. macvechkin, fka jr wrote:

    Smart play by the WT. With print dying as it is, you need a clear differentiator. Better to hook up to the Ovie train than the Buzzards and Nasty-Nats. Now if we could just get some of the liberals to read the rest of the paper. ;-)

    10 October, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
  7. Paul wrote:

    The Post is an arrogant newspaper. Too bad there isnt a credible competitor…they would be toast. But for Caps coverage…the Times is a fine alternative for me. My 50cents a day during hockey season goes to the Times. I can read Tarik just fine online.
    Tarik is good but Corey has more savvy editors.

    10 October, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
  8. Chimaera wrote:

    I read both online. But I couldn’t justify ordering the Reverend’s paper.

    10 October, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Permalink
  9. exwhaler wrote:

    >>”the problem is that the Times is politically a conservative publication in a mostly liberal metro region and I get the sense that a lot of people can‚Äôt bring themselves to be seen buying the paper.”
    Well, it’s also that the Times was founded and is owned by Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church. Many people–including conservatives–don’t like the idea of sending money the Moonies’ way.
    “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”–Rev. Moon in 2002. How did he know about Ovechkin then?

    10 October, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  10. Tyler wrote:

    With the Redskins 4-1 it’s a little suprising that the Caps are getting this much coverage. I’d figure the Redskins would be most the talk around town.

    10 October, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
  11. Hey guys. A little while ago I ran a piece about supporting your beat blogger. This is a perfect example of when e-mailing the editors is a great idea. Let the Times know you loved their season opening coverage, and let the Post know how disappointed you were. If you think your voice won’t go a long way, you’d be surprised.

    10 October, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
  12. I mean beat Reporter….lol

    10 October, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
  13. odessa steps magazin wrote:

    I think the Post sports section is just a shell of its former self.
    The two times I bought the paper in the last couple weeks, the sports section was 6 pages. And that’s in the middle of MLB playoffs, football and NHL/NBA training camps.
    Like lots of folks here, I just can’t justify good Caps coverage for supporing that paper.

    10 October, 2008 at 5:32 pm | Permalink