You can’t be serious. Jonathan Mahler has an article in the New York Times today (HT Moulin) that starts out with this gem:
With the 2006 World Cup building toward its climax, soccer has reasserted its claim as the most popular sport on the planet. But in most of America, interest in the game remains – how to put it? – nil.
He then proceeds to go through the rise and fall of the New York Cosmos, trying to somehow draw a comparison between interest in soccer in America today vs. the 70’s. (Hint – he thinks the 70’s were soccer’s heyday in the US). I guess he missed the 1994 (Mens) and 1999 (Womens) World Cup when they came to town or the packed bars with patrons cheering on non US teams in the 2006 World Cup. While the trip down memory lane was fun (I saw a few Cosmos matches when I was a kid), I’m not sure how the popularity and subsequent decline of the Cosmos in any way supports the conclusion that interest in soccer in America is nil. Oh that’s right, he was just parroting the knee jerk ‘Americans Hate Soccer’ mantra that all journalists seem to have implanted in their brains. Pity.
Maybe the NY Times Public Editor should be told that making blanket statements with nothing to back them up is poor journalism. Especially when the recent ratings clearly say otherwise.
Loading...
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Amazing, the NY Times rarely gets it right.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Unfortunately they have lots of company in the “let’s bash soccer” club 🙂
July 4th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Does ANYBODY in the mainstream media actually have a clue? Their kids are all playing the game, and yet they can’t get their shit together and publish a reasonable, well-researched piece on the game unless it’s specifically about something that happened during the World Cup.
Riddle me this – what exactly was middle America doing while some very small subsection of the nation was watching the NY/NJ Cosmos? Because today I can almost guarantee you that their kids play as much football as anyone else, but back then notsomuch.
July 4th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
I’ve read a few articles where the reporter seemed to have a clue. But that has been the exception. Often it’s just subtle. I was reading an article in our paper today where they were talking about the low the scores had been and, of course, to the reporter this meant the matches had been boring.
Um, not so much if you actually WATCHED them!