The Washington Times Is A Better Newspaper Than The Washington Post

There, I said it. I had to turn off the "liberal lock" on my keyboard and cringed at typing it, but insofar as their coverage of the Capitals (and sports generally), the Washington Times is far superior to its crosstown rival. Today's articles are a perfect example. Let's compare.

Both papers note the Caps Thursday signings of Dainius Zubrus, Matt Bradley and J.F. Fortin, as well as the offer extended by the team to Peter Bondra. The Post gives four paragraphs to the Zubrus signing, basically noting that he will be the team's highest paid forward at $1.85m per year and that "the 27-year-old Lithuanian likely will play on the Capitals' top line, possibly alongside rookie left wing Alexander Ovechkin." By process of elimination, one supposes, that makes Zubrus a center or a rightwing (both positions he has played extensively in the past).

The Times, by contrast, gives the reader a brief recap of Zubrus' career to dates, tells us exactly what position to expect Zubrus to be playing and notes what non-hockey skills Zubrus has that are important to the team by actually quoting General Manager George McPhee ("'He'll be one of our top centers,'" McPhee said. "'He's an excellent two-way player who brings size [6-foot-4, 230] and speed and has become really good on faceoffs. And his ability to speak fluent Russian will really help with some of the younger guys.'")

On the Bondra front, the Post cites its own online chat and includes the key McPhee quote on the matter, that "[i]t's really up to Peter whether he plays here or not." Care to elaborate? No?

The Times, on the other hand, includes a variation on that quote, but gives some context and depth to it with another McPhee quote ("'We made him an offer that could make him one of our highest-paid forwards'") and a point of reference ("McPhee refused to say how much he had offered Bondra, a long-time fan favorite, but did say it was nowhere near the staggering $7 million over two years the New Jersey Devils have committed to often-injured forward Alexander Mogilny, who is recovering from his second hip surgery since the 2003-04 season ended."). Wow. That actually resembles journalism.

The two papers clearly have different priorities (the Post places a hgih value on reporting news, the Times on regurgitating RNC talking points), but it's a shame that District subscribers have to choose whether they want their good journalism in the A Section or in the sports page. Luckily for us, there's the internet - which the Times will be all to quick to erroneously assert that Al Gore claims to have invented.

Sucker Punched

The reinstatement of Todd Bertuzzi had me thinking on the role the League and the media play in how hockey is marketed. With the ink on the CBA still fresh, rule changes, and new strategic partnerships the League is charged with the ambitious task making the game profitable. It might not be next year but here's why they're on the right track.

As most know, the NHL does not make a lot of money. In 2002-03, the NHL reportedly spent more on costs than it got back in revenue (net loss of about $300mln). So, we’re not dealing with a highly profitable, widely coveted, or particularly well-run asset. The lockout and subsequent CBA gives the NHL an opportunity to become more profitable through controls on spending and a (re)emphasis on the concepts that Madison Avenue feels will sell the best. Every decision from this point needs to be viewed through this lens.

Given that, it is easy to frame the decision to reinstate Bertuzzi in large measure as a financial one. Even the way the story was released showed flashes of marketing savvy. The classic “shout and whisper” technique: the Gretzky’s coaching announcement had the effect of diminishing the criticism of the Bertuzzi news later that same day. The NHL needs things to go VERY right in the next couple of years and it needs to be known for more than gratuitous violence. A goal-friendly format was introduced for just that reason. In this way the Bertuzzi reinstatement mirrors the League's own reinvention. Above all, this translates into ticket sales and I imagine even those who find Bertuzzi’s actions deplorable will buy tickets to boo him in rinks around the country.

Hockey is a brutal game. Yet, that is principally what the novice fan pays to see. It is a great game for all the reasons it’s not appreciated. Go to Columbus and show me a hockey fan and I’ll show you a Jody Shelley fan. Which is why the Bertuzzi outrage was such bunk. To celebrate the game for its violent streak yet also condemn it when someone crosses some artificially determined moral line strikes me as ridiculous. Fans want to see players toe a violent edge but not cross it. When they do, everyone scapegoats them. The NHL has two options: either decrease your tolerance for acceptable levels of gratuitous violence through rule change or leave it the same, discipline the offenders, accept the public image black eye, and move on. But it is disingenious for the League and, to a lesser extent, the media to refuse to move the line in order to sell the game while also coming down so hard on Bertuzzi.

The media coverage after Bertuzzi’s attack was predictable. What prevents the game from gaining any momentum, was the media coverage before the attack. Back when Steve Moore dummied Markus Naslund, questions abounded as to why no Canuck “stood up” and fed Moore his lunch immediately. When it comes to hockey, the media looks no deeper than the box score, the fight, or the great sound bite because they don't have to and at the end of the day I am too stupid to tell the difference. The adage should read “It may lead, but only if it bleeds”. This is the price the League felt it needed to pay to sell seats. How is that strategy at all enlightening for the fan?

The League needs success stories in order to flourish. The first of these is the OLN deal because it shifts the media paradigm. The League will no longer have to compete for shelf space and can now begin to challenge the assumptions, concepts, and values for which it has come to be known.