Ways that Lolo Jones is Better than The New York Times

Sorry to say that Cynical Christian household favorite Lolo Jones finished fourth in the 100-meter hurdles at the Olympics. That’s not terrible; she’s better at what she does than everybody in the world except for three people. How many of us can say that? But it’s not a medal and it’s certainly not what she wanted.

On top of that, The New York Times recently wrote a silly, spiteful article about her that obviously bothered her a great deal.

I can’t do anything about the race results, but if the NYT is going to pick on Lolo, I think it’s important to point out all the ways that she is better than they are:

Design – I think it goes without saying that the dated, stuffy design of the Times can’t hold a candle to the cutting-edge flair of Jones. “All the news that’s fit” – no; “All new fitness” – yes!

NYT – Fishwrap-in-waiting
Lolo Jones – Generating interest above the fold
Return on investment – If you could buy stock in the NYT or Lolo Jones right now, which one would you buy? Exactly. The Times may have more advertisers, but not by much.

Good StoriesJones has one; The Times has zero.

Future – Lolo Jones will still be around ten years from now. The New York Times? Not so much.

And incidentally, The Times is not the fourth best in the world at what they do, and they’re certainly not getting any better. Should we say that they’re all style and no substance?

Leave a Reply