Good article about Boston "Sports writers"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Good article about Boston "Sports writers"

    Not sure how long this will last:

     

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2013/01/boston-sportswriters-awful/

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    That was an excellent article. Thanks mrmojo...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    this was my favorite part of the article:

    There has to be a willingness to put yourself out there and make statements without knowing what you’re talking about,” Rich Levine, an online columnist for CSNNE, told me. “You have to not give a sh!t about ultimately looking like an idiot or saying a lot of things that you regret.”

    many BDC posters could have a career in broadcast if they wanted lol.

     

    In a landscape where being loud and controversial is valued over being smart and insightful—and over doing the difficult work of investigative reporting—it’s no surprise that the Boston sports media keeps getting beat on genuinely important news, like Passan’s story about the Red Sox players meeting with ownership.


    i've also noticed this while reading the globe articles these past few years. All reaction, no substance. Sometimes they pump out a decent, stat filled, factual article but mostly (certain writers anyway) it's all filled with crap.

     

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    They were pretty dead on about Alex Speier too. He's a very good writer.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    In response to carnie's comment:

    That was an excellent article. Thanks mrmojo...




    Fantastic article, interesting theory.  Has the Globe's sportswriting become terrible....or was their 30-year run of Gammons, Rosa, Montville and McDonough simply too brilliant to sustain, making the current crop's mediocrity seem substandard?

    I only follow the Sox' coverage in local terms so can't opine on Boston's local journalists vs other markets.  Any views?     But in this day and age is it likely that a high quality local journalist won't be poached by a national, high paying, high profile giant?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    Say what you want about Felger but he called the Pats-Raven outcome.  But then again, he was wrong about the Bruins when they won the Stanely cup.

    They are just trying to make a buck like anyone else.  They aren't that far removed from Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    Great article highlighting the many reasons I don't read the Globe writers anymore.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    That's what John Henry said about the Felger & Mazz radio talk show. He said that it was all about entertainment and lacked credibility and substance. The funny thing is that Felger responded by agreeing with him. That doesn't say much about the audience that tunes in every day. It must be the crowd that watches Jerry Springer and Judge Judy for their daily dose of pure theater and speculation.




    HEY! you don't run your mouth at judge Judy!! that woman is a saint

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    I thought there was too much cherry-picking by the writer and a lot of things he made a big deal about that's not a big deal, needed a crow bar in some instances to twist the facts into his narrative and contradicted himself.

    He rips the Globe and the Herald for having veterans -- like they're the only media companies that have had long-time columnists and beat writers. And since when is experience a bad thing? Yes, complacency can set in but just because someone is younger, it doesn't mean they're better.  Heck, most of the guys at national websites are veterans. That's why they're at the national sites.

    He says it's hard for young writers to break in the boston media. First, there's more to the Boston media than the Globe and the Herald. There are smaller papers for young writers to break into the business and if they're good, they move up -- Chris Snow, Mike Reiss, Chris Gasper, Amalie Benjamin, Shira Springer (going back into the 1990s when Bill Simmons was moaning and groaning). Peter Abe's career is typical -- he started at a smaller paper, proved his worth, got a job at one major market then moved to another.

    That a Chris Snow wants to leave journalism (for more money) or a Mark Spears wants to go to a national website is somehow the fault of "The Lodge." Many of the guys who are at ESPN or other websites aren't there by their own plan. Cutback in newspaper forced many veterans to leave and were replaced by youngsters, who were cheaper.

    The Globe actually has a better blend of veterans and new reporters than many other papers. Shaughnessy, Cafardo and Kevin Paul DuPont have been there for years, but most of the rest are new to the Glove in the past decade (or less).

    The writer of the piece rips newspapers for some of their old-school stuff -- gamers, etc. -- yet ignores of glosses over the fact that they do more, including new-school-type stories. The Globe still gives you more coverage and more stories on the Sox, Pats, Bruins and Celtics than ESPN, even with the ESPNBoston site, or other national websites. Abraham and Bedard produce the exact-type of story that he praises website guys of writing. 

    I'm not sure why the writer of the piece seems to think it has to be an either-or when it comes to what's produced. There is an overflow of media outlets so why do they all have to produce the same stuff?

    For as good as the Globe was back in the 1970s and 1980s with Gammons, Ryan, McDonough and Rosa as the leads on the four major teams, remember, they didn't have to compete with national writers like local writers have to do. Yes, a national guy might parachute in and break a story, but how many times is a Passan or some other national writer wrong? THey can throw chit against the wall and see what sticks, because they don't have to face the same guys every day. (And on that note, maybe the writer should go back and read some of McDonough's stuff that he wrote when the Sox were for sale. There was so much that he was proven wrong on since then that it should be viewed as fiction.)

    I don't understand the criticim of the fact that the editor of the Globe told the sports editor that he wanted a bit story on the collapse. First, I'm sure that happens a lot at all levels where an overall editor is suggesting stories or collaborating with specific editors. Editors have meetings every day. What's the big deal? And so what that it was an investigative guy (who knew the beat) doing the story. Sports isn't the only area where an investigative guy does a story that the beat reporter doesn't.

    And I don't understand the lumping of talk show hosts in with the rest of the story. First, talk shows are entertainment first. Even Felger will admit that. That there are blowhards and wild stuff said on these talk shows isn't exactly unique to Boston. And like the Globe's staff, there are some talk shows hosts that are new and some who have been around for years.

    It's especially laughable his criticism of Shaughnessy -- like he's the only contrarian in the country, at a local site or a national one? They're all over the place, and Shaughnessy is a better writer than most of the others. (Even if you don't like what he writes, he is a good writer). And the pssing match that Tom E. (for EGO?) Curren started over Shaughnessy's column made Curren look foolish and small. I loved the way Shaughnessy reponded, almost mocking Curren. Curren's not half the beat writer Shaughnessy was when Dan covered the Celtics and Red Sox.

    Stories like this pieice are cheap. He found a couple of high-profile recent instances where the local media got beat and built a whole narrative around it, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the story. He should have kept it a bit more focused on the main problem, which is can beat writers be too close to their sources that it keeps them from seeing problems. Because the flip side is, just because a national writer parachutes in and "breaks" a story, it doesn't mean they have it right. They often are making mountains out of mole hills, when the beat guys or are there day to day know the real story and know it was just a mole hill.

    I'm not saying that is the case with the Passan story, but it the real and only "problem" that's worthy of discussion -- intelligent discussion. Instead, the writer's piece was nothing but a cliched-type of story that he rip in the piece:

    Media bashing media -- wow, how original.

     

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    I also dont think "breaking stories" is what I want out of the Globe. Stories break at a pace no "one" journalist or newspaper can keep up with. I can see breaking stories on my phone, twitter, facebook, TV...any where. I prefer the analysis after the fact. Bedard is very good at it...agreed. I think Pete Abe is also good at it. Carfardo is set in his ways, old school, and is around for his connections to the SOx front office. Not a fan. Also not a fan of Shalise, always thought her stories were something I could care less about, or old news. I like Finn, the EEI website guys except for Bradford. Never listen to talk radio. The ESPN Boston group is also very good, although Edes runs hot and cold. Forsberg and Jackie Mac and Reiss all very good. Print Tony Mazz is just about as bad as radio Tony Mazz.

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    I listen to Felger and Mazz for a bit almost every afternoon. I think they..along with Toucher and Rich..are the best on Boston sports radio. For sure..they are there for entertainment first but Felger knows his hockey and manages to show flashes of sports brilliance occasionally. Mazz by himself is terrible..but he's good at repeating what Felger says..and they are both pretty funny.

    As far as the writers go..I have to say that for the most part I agree. I think especially the baseball writers are just terrible. More interested in soap opera and less interest in actual analysis.

    I think 98.5 should give Jen Royle her own show. She has more sports knowledge in her little finger than most of today's Boston radio personalities.

    As far as the writers

     One Boston sports writer who was not mentioned in the article and who I think deserves high praise is Globe writer Gary Dzen. No one..and I mean no one knows the Celtics ( and the sport of basketball) like he does. ( at least in my humble opinion).No one else really worth reading

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

    Re: Good article about Boston

    Here's something to keep in mind too.

    The writer of the piece rips the Globe writers for writing "gamers" and comparing them to the writer on a website -- Reiss on ESPN for example -- for his analysis piece. What he's ignoring is that if you go to ESPN, you still get both the analysis that Reiss is writing and the old-school "gamer" but Reiss isn't writing the "game," ESPN simply is using The Associated Press story. Readers still get both.

    So if you go to the Globe, you get an analysis piece that a staffer is writing and you get "gamer" that a staffer is writing, not an AP gamer. Most websites that cover the pro teams usually have links to the AP story.

    Places like the Globe and the Herald are in a quandry. If they don't provide the traditional gamer, they get many complaints from the readers. And can you imagine the outcry if a place as big as the Globe used an AP gamer instead of a staffers. They're still expected to produce the old-school stuff -- (not all readers are hardcore fans who want new-school stuff) and produce new-school stories (for lack of a better way of describing). 

    Many sports sites, even ESPN, can get away with writing for hardcore fans or niche fans. A place like the Globe often has to find a way to write for the casual fan as well as the hardcore fan. That's not an easy task. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    I was making posts along these lines 2 years ago.

     

    I started posting at espn;s website several years ago because I found the message board there the fastest way to get updates on games.  MLB.tv did not exist, and my cable courier at the time did not have an MLB package. The MLB Network did not exist, and the radio feeds from WEEI's site as well as the Gameday feature at ESPN.com were both significantly slower through my dial up connection than the rapid pace of posters on the ESPN boards. I left ESPN for this site, because people at Boston.com were actually talking baseball 12 months out of the year, whereas ESPN.com devolved into Junior High cliquey-ness all year long.

     

    At Boston.com, I had one personal policy. I would not trash the Globe sportswriters on their site. I viewed this as akin to walking into a business and kicking the employees. Instead, I would write sardonic relies to the overwhelming populace of posters who felt they knew everything about running a team and somehow felt that not being hired or having their suggestions taken seriously was a personal affront. I still do this on occasion, as do many others. But then something happened to change my policy for me.

     

    The Globe hired Tony Massarotti. This was like hearing my church was ordaining Satan to handle services on Sunday. There was no way my policy could survive this. Not comment on the Deity of Whininess himself?

     

    Massarotti was the foremost of the reasons I always avoided the Herald, with a close second reason being Gerry Callahan. Massarotti is the personification of the idea "If I disagree and call everyone else stupid, it makes me smart" mentality. Callahan bothered me almost as much, as he wrote with the attitude of a disgruntled Little League parent. I can handle passionate sportswriters, but not ones who pervade ignorance. These two live in a room where they hold the microphone, and they both know that since they cannot be the smartest guy, they can at least be the loudest. Throw Steve Buckley, a lesser transgressor, but a transgressor nonetheless, and you have three guys whose attitude was never that the glass is half empty, nor half full, but are all instead appalled that the glass was filled with water in the first place. If there was something to complain about, they were going to find it and publish it. It was like each had the goal of finding a different complaint than everyone else, and in doing so, they met their own personal definition of “insightful.”  (To describe them. I invented and have repeatedly used the word “inciteful,” which is much more appropriate in my eyes.)

     

    Callahan has never understood that sports are entertainment. Buckley always writes as though he is jealous that all he gets to do is write the story, instead of be the story. And Massarotti, my least favorite of the bunch, can at least live with knowing that his ignorance and attitude are so toxic, he actually makes the others look good by comparison. I suffer from a serious baseball addiction and seek out my fix wherever I can, but I would rather shave my head with a cheese grater and dip it in a bowl of rubbing alcohol than talk baseball with Tony Massarotti.

     

    To me, Callahan strongly emphasizes the difference between "childish" and "childlike."  I view my writings as childlike, often full of silliness and with a playful demeanor. At least that is what I try for, and I am not always successful, but, hey, I am not a sportswriter, or any kind of writer for that matter. Callahan is childish. He writes like a man who has simply never grown up, and from what I understand, has allowed this attitude to carry over to his radio show.  (I could be wrong. I have never listened to it.)  He was always the “man” in the center of the room, screaming for attention because the world around him was not unfolding the way he learned it should at age 10. None of these three, or several other less notables, seems to understand what a privileged life they have in the eyes of the average fan. They even miss such obvious points about sports being a business, because they are too busy engulfed in sportswriting being a business, and are repeatedly annoyed when the local teams simply do not give them what they need to forward their own careers. THAT is how they differ from Speier. Speier focuses on baseball, and on being a conduit of information to his readers. Massarotti, Callahan and Buckley focus on Massarotti, Callahan and Buckley, and view covering local teams as a paying their dues on their way to bigger and better things.

     

    Maybe now that I have vented, I can rekindle my policy of not trashing sportswriters on this site and get back to baseball…

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good article about Boston

    Notin - great post.  I may comment on more of it later, but for now "the difference between "childish" and "childlike" is on my mind....I often think and talk about it.

    The difference between those words is widely ignored or misunderstood or undervalued.  "Childish" is always bad, whether one is 6 or 66, though forgivable from a child.   Ignorant, selfish, petty, grasping, demanding....all bad.

    "Childlike?"  Always good regardless of age, though often lost or, worse, discarded for being considered "childish".  Excitement, curiosity, a sense of wonder at new things, enjoying things at face value, etc. 

     

     

Share