Do we want reporters or sycophants?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Do we want reporters or sycophants?

       I don't understand why so many posters want to "kill the messenger" whenever something negative comes out about RS. I for one want someone who will bring me the news, be it good or bad, on the hometown team. Do you really want a cheerleader for a reporter, who'll insult your intelligence, a SGT Schultz if you will, who "knows nothing" and sees every situation with rose colored glasses. Just as an aside I've always held this view, I for one thought Johnny Most of Celtic fame was nothing but a clown act.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]   I don't understand why so many posters want to "kill the messenger" whenever something negative comes out about RS. I for one want someone who will bring me the news, be it good or bad, on the hometown team. Do you really want a cheerleader for a reporter, who'll insult your intelligence, a SGT Schultz if you will, who "knows nothing" and sees every situation with rose colored glasses. Just as an aside I've always held this view, I for one thought Johnny Most of Celtic fame was nothing but a clown act.
    Posted by attic-dan[/QUOTE]

    That's exactly what kimpike wants.......

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    I'd settle for honest reporting.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    I'd like to see the media stay away from melodrama and focus on X's and O's, player performance, managerial strategy, roster moves, ya know, the actual game.

    When everyone and their brother has to add their 2 cents to a story about words exchanged by 2 grown men, that is not sports reporting it is tabloid journalism. 

    I care about Youk's role on the team, Youk's swing, Youk's contract situaiton, Youk's trade value, Youk's health, etc.. I care about Bobby V's managerial philosophy, his thinking on what makes for the best line-up, how he wants to use his pitching staff, etc....  That is what I'd like out of my "sports journalists", not 100 different takes on a media driven male soap opera.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    My viewpoint is:  This is the world of the Boston Red Sox.  What would it be if it didn't have a melodramatically-prone press corps whipping the ever-hysterical fan base into a frenzy with unbalanced, reductionist negativity.  This has been an important aspect of the culture dating back to the days of the Royal Rooters, perhaps before.  

    In the sports world at large, I am not sure it is possible to have a team with a following as rabid as the Red Sox' and not have this sort of rabble-rousing media exploiting the passion.  It is a big mobious loop.

    However, this does not excuse the very poor journalism that is produced by Mazz and the usual suspects.  Atrocious most of the time.

    But, hey, when people lose their minds with weeping and gnashing of teeth after every regular season loss, what more can we expect?  What more do we deserve?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]I agree with you . I was all for how the FO handled the Manny, Nomar, OC, Lowe, Damon, and Pedro situations. Many on the forum were not. I thought that they gave it their best shot to sign Contreras, ARod, and Teixiera and many did not. I also accept that they are under tight budget constraints now and had to be frugal this past winter and many did not want to accept that. I also agree with the players and columnists that said that ChickenGate was much ado about nothing while many of the forum disagreed. I believed Theo when he said that being 55% correct of your GM moves is successful. One question for you, is CHB or Mazz or Felger the messengers that you are referring to.
    Posted by Calzone65[/QUOTE]
      Yes I'm referring to those mentioned, plus columnists like Shaughnessy, Ryan etc. I wonder if people realize their is a difference between the "beat writers" and columnists or radio provacatures like Felger. Opinions are why they are there and if every story is cute and cuddly for the local nine, their listenership would plummit.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]My viewpoint is:  This is the world of the Boston Red Sox.  What would it be if it didn't have a melodramatically-prone press corps whipping the ever-hysterical fan base into a frenzy with unbalanced, reductionist negativity.  This has been an important aspect of the culture dating back to the days of the Royal Rooters, perhaps before.   In the sports world at large, I am not sure it is possible to have a team with a following as rabid as the Red Sox' and not have this sort of rabble-rousing media exploiting the passion.  It is a big mobious loop. However, this does not excuse the very poor journalism that is produced by Mazz and the usual suspects.  Atrocious most of the time. But, hey, when people lose their minds with weeping and gnashing of teeth after every regular season loss, what more can we expect?  What more do we deserve?
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    The media to an extent has the power to steer to public discourse, if they dwell on drama and the off the field non sense, it moves the needle of public opinion.

    In the era of the 24 hour news cycle the media likely appeals to the lowest common denominator because sadly, that is what plays. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]your point has great merit but seein how this, BB,  is a form of entertaiment I'll take a couple of each
    Posted by pinstripezac[/QUOTE]

       I expect, and understand, why the beat writers, don't dabble into the negativity, at least until the off season. They are in and around these guys for 8-9 months a year, be hard to get job done if your continually antagonizing everyone. Like you I want both aspects of reporting there is a place for NESN and the Boston Globe.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants? : The media to an extent has the power to steer to public discourse, if they dwell on drama and the off the field non sense, it moves the needle of public opinion. In the era of the 24 hour news cycle the media likely appeals to the lowest common denominator because sadly, that is what plays. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Sure, this dog is easily wagged by its tail.  But, just saying, this sort of lcd-appeal, pathetic rabble rousing wouldn't fly in KC or Seattle or even Atlanta.  They can get away with it in Boston because Sox fans are insane.  

    It may move the crazy needle further, yes.  But it is viscious cycle.  And I don't believe that it is a product of the 24 hour news cycle.  The Sox media has always rabble-roused.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants? : Sure, this dog is easily wagged by its tail.  But, just saying, this sort of lcd-appeal, pathetic rabble rousing wouldn't fly in KC or Seattle or even Atlanta.  They can get away with it in Boston because Sox fans are insane.   It may move the crazy needle further, yes.  But it is viscious cycle.  And I don't believe that it is a product of the 24 hour news cycle.  The Sox media has always rabble-roused.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]Not in San Francisco either.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants? : Not in San Francisco either.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    exactly, and SF loves their Gigantes.  But, they are not wacko like us (us as in the collective RSN).
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]   I don't understand why so many posters want to "kill the messenger" whenever something negative comes out about RS. I for one want someone who will bring me the news, be it good or bad, on the hometown team. Do you really want a cheerleader for a reporter, who'll insult your intelligence, a SGT Schultz if you will, who "knows nothing" and sees every situation with rose colored glasses. Just as an aside I've always held this view, I for one thought Johnny Most of Celtic fame was nothing but a clown act.
    Posted by attic-dan[/QUOTE]

    Well obviously one cant trust a reporter one way or the other. They are in the business to sell their product. Not tell you the truth.  

    the only thing that sports news is good for is to tell you who won, how a team won, what the score is and to give you the box score.

    Everything else is just some guys opinion.


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    Isn't "Sports Journalism" an oxymoron?  Face it, sports is entertainment.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanCap. Show SanCap's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    Reporters with objective analysis.  Which is not the same as opinionated bluster.  Greg A. Bedard seems to get a good balance on the Patriots.  Pete Abe is ok with factual reporting but light on analysis and conjecture.  I read Mazz just for the comments that inevitably follow.  Shank is a huge disappointment from the way he started his career here in the 80s.  I don't listen to talk radio.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    The American free press has rarely been sycophantic, so I hardly see that as a danger.  On the contrary, in Boston the free press do seem to go out of their way to make a small story into a big one.  But who can blame them?  Whatever Bobby V says is fair game. 

    Let's not forget the Ellsbury saga of 2010 when they were all trying to tell us whether Ells was a good guy or a malingerer and also what every player on the team thought about him.  And they struck gold when Youk agreed to denounce Ellsbury as a not a team player because he went out west for his rehab.   Then there were all those medical reports and assessments of the reports, etc. 

    This time they have succeeded almost beyond their wildest dreams.  Bobby V apparently badmouthed Youk, so Pedroia badmouted Valentine.  Youk talked to Valentine several times.  And Cherington decided he needed to get credit for calming the waters.  By now it is possible Bobby's job is in jeopardy because of what Pedroia said--basically, that a manager cannot say what he thinks about a player, even if he didn't intend it to be derogatory.  So yesterday we got to hear about a lot of grovelling by Valentine. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    I usually stick to reading or listening to the guys and ladies who tell it straight without a lot of the drama shtick.  Cafardo, Bedard, MacMullen, DuPont and their ilk can usually tell you the whole story without succumbing to the need to sound like jilted prom dates after the team(s) they cover lose a game.  The whiny media and the hordes that feed their agenda have made the written word and the airwaves so unbearable that I pretty much go in a bunker for weeks at a time.     

    You know how I know Tony Mazz is resorting to the drama shtick?  Listen to the Felger and Mazz show and then immediately after to the baseball reporters segment when Mazz is decoupled from Felger.  Mazz then he does what he does best, baseball 101, chock full of informed opinions and lacking the whiny stuff.  He can be good, but it's not what gets him ratings. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    You present the thread question as if it were choice A or B.  That reporters that write negative articles are reporters and that those that don't, aren't.

    It is entirely possible to write a very pleasant article, and be completely accurate, or to write a negative article, and be making half of it up.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]   I don't understand why so many posters want to "kill the messenger" whenever something negative comes out about RS. I for one want someone who will bring me the news, be it good or bad, on the hometown team. Do you really want a cheerleader for a reporter, who'll insult your intelligence, a SGT Schultz if you will, who "knows nothing" and sees every situation with rose colored glasses. Just as an aside I've always held this view, I for one thought Johnny Most of Celtic fame was nothing but a clown act.
    Posted by attic-dan[/QUOTE]

    What if it was something negative about you?? Think about it. Would it be ok?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    In Response to Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?:
    [QUOTE]You present the thread question as if it were choice A or B.  That reporters that write negative articles are reporters and that those that don't, aren't. It is entirely possible to write a very pleasant article, and be completely accurate, or to write a negative article, and be making half of it up.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    and it's entirely possible to write a negative article and be completely accurate or to write a positive article and make most of it up.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    The fact of the matter, like any profession, there are good reporters and bad reporters. Just because a reporter is a good reporter, it doesn't mean he's always writing positive stories, and vice versa. Bad reporters can be positive and good reporters can be negative.

    And just because a story is negative or full of drama, it doesn't mean the reporter is "getting involved in the melodrama." Sometimes the story is what it is.

    Take the Youk story this week. Channel 7 asked a basic question about Youk. Valentine answered and that created the story. The media didn't really make a lot out of it. There was enough there -- not being there physically or emotionally, or however Bobby V. put it -- that of course, a reporter was going to question Youk about it. From there, these things take on a life of their own.

    Many times it's not the reporter wagging the story, so to speak, it's the story wagging the reporter.

    Then if you look at the Hohler story last fall. It was an epic collapse. Of course, the fans want to know what happened, and Hohler reported what was told to him. From there, it's others -- fans, talk show hosts, columnists -- who build it up into more. (And columnists and reporters have separate duties.).

    In the end, it's often not reporters who make stories into something they're not (although, of course they do at times). It's how we (readers, fans) interpret the stories.

    For example the collapse. There was disfunction on the team, even the players admit to that. But was that the primary reason? The Sox pitching staff gave up five or more runs in 20 of 27 games in the month of September? Was the disfunction the cause of that (Beckett involved in just two) or was it more basic -- just not enough talent?

    At this point, it's everyone who is putting their own spin to develop their own reasons, and there's nothing reporters can do. Columnist and talk show hosts can amp up one various sides, but are they really changing anyone's opinions? I don't think so. At this point, fans already have their minds made up. If you think it was this disfunction that was 100 percent to blame, then Felger (especially) and Mazz are "telling it like it is." If you think it was 100 percent pitching due to lack of talent, then you think they're full of s&it. 

    And so it goes. If the reporter writes a story that's 100 percent accurate but it's negative and you don't want to believe it, you blame the reporter for the story, not the participants. So much of media bashing is so predictable.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from crix. Show crix's posts

    Re: Do we want reporters or sycophants?

    I want them to report on baseball.  I want them to report on the players' performance.  I want them to talk baseball strategy.  I want in-depth analysis of how players played, how the manager manages, and the progress of players who are injured.  I want them to talk about the moves of the front office, the trades/aquisitions/call-ups/scouting.  I want them to talk about the fanbase and the fan culture that supports the team as well as the charitable efforts of the club.  I am fine with them being as critical or praiseworthy as they want of any of these subjects as long as they can back it it up.

    What I don't want them to do is constantly inflate petty nonsense into manufactured controversy and drama.  I also don't want them to dump the baggage of the previous season's failings on to the team of the new season.

    The absurd rehash of the already inflated September clubhouse controversy on this year's Spring Training was shameful and ridiculous.  The Boston Sports media is poisonous, and they will look for any opportunity to tear the team down and create controversy and disunity.  These same people are the ones who are the first to cash in on Red Sox success as much as they can.

    I'm not expecting the Boston media to refrain from saying anything critical of the team, just keep it about the game, not the ridiculously petty stuff they inflate to stir controversy. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share