Saturday, January 17, 2009

Philly Breweries in the New York Times

Check this out. I know the buzz is that the New York Times is going down -- and I'll believe it when I see it -- but it's still the paper of record, and when they notice Philly breweries, that's a good thing. Some real nice words about some of our local brewers. Not sure if that prediction of 40,000 bbls. next year from Yards was a misquote... [it was; see the comment from Steve "Red-headed Stepchild of Yards" Mashington] but hey, it's an optimistic piece. Congratulations!

9 comments:

Thomas said...

Record of what? Failures? Biases?

Certainly not journalism standard anytime recently. Just because something had that name doesn't mean it carries it forever, frankly I think TimesSelect was their death-knell because it sent more casual readers like me away. I stopped even bother to read their columnists and look at it maybe once a month for specific articles others note. A decade ago I probably read something they had every other day.

Only a matter of time now.

Lew Bryson said...

Thomas,

Not to turn this into a forum on the NYT -- because I won't, and I won't post further comments on that in the interests of keeping to topic -- but I'd like to explain why I used that phrase. I was trained as and worked as a librarian before I started writing about beer. One of the most valuable reference tools I had for historical searches -- political, cultural, science, financial, what have you -- was the NYT index. The Times, regardless of its leanings, or format, or stumbles on the Web, has maintained a broader scope than almost any other American newspaper. That's really what I'm referring to, not any standard of journalism. Put me on the side of those that wonder exactly who's going to actually go to the news any more and report the stuff that bloggers than dissect and poke fun at.

In the meantime, showing up in the Times is still a good day for a brewpub.

geoffrobinson said...

The New York Times as a corporation is going down and going down hard. That doesn't mean someone won't buy the paper for a firesale. Given the state of the newspaper industry (craigslist, bringer of death, destroyer of worlds), they are going to have to fire a ton of people and rethink what they do. But everyone has to do that.

They owe something like $400 million very soon and access to credit markets doesn't seem feasible. Plus, they just built a new building for themselves (Bad Idea) and are going to try and hock it.

They may try selling their stake in the Red Sox too. Again, this is a distressed market so they won't get a great price, but what other choice do they have?

Are they biased? Yes. But they do good work. But the economics just don't work.

Lew Bryson said...

Okay, really, that was the last one. No more NYT talk: I won't post it. Fair warning not to waste your time. It's not that I agree or disagree with you, but it's a post about Philly brewpubs. Beer. Okay? Thanks!

Steve said...

40,000 was a misquote. I think the author was confused when Kehoe said that the facility has the capacity to expand to 40,000 barrels.

Oh, well. Second piece on the craft brewing scene in the NYT in the last several months. That's a very good thing.

bilking said...

If only the breweries and brewpubs weren't in Philadelphia. Sorry but I've hated Philadelphia since Rizzo ruled the place. Expensive, dirty and only gonna get worse as the money runs out. I guess Iron Hill and Stewart's will have to do, I'll muddle through somehow.

Lew Bryson said...

Expensive and dirty, really? Is that compared to other U.S. cities? I've been living in the area since 1991, and I'm impressed with how the city's improved. Parking is expensive, I'll grant you that, and I really wish they'd do a LOT better job on street-blocking during construction. But...dirty? Really?

Joe said...

I lived in Philly for 23 years before moving up to North Jersey. I'm not bashing NYC, but Philly is neither expensive nor dirty in comparison.

also:

"[Yards] plans to limit distribution to Philadelphia."

Sucks for me.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it really depends upon the comparison of what a dirty city is. For example, I spend quite a bit of time in Pittsburgh, though I live in the eastern part of the state, and the cleanliness of that city always surprizes me.

I lived in Baltimore for a time, and once you leave the inner harbor, the place becomes slum-like throughout, with only a few nicer cleaner pasrts of the city intermingled.

I would say Philly is between those two. And I am sure there are cities much worse than B-more. Philly is not filthy, but there are parts that leave alot to be desired, then again, I feel comfortable enough walking the streets at night that I won't be carried off by a pack of rats, something that is a real concern in Baltimore.....