Links

Monday, January 30, 2006

Dan-isms, Part 3

The King of Contradictions rides again.

"If you are a fan, you cannot be an objective reporter." -- to John Molori, Boston Sports Review, Jan. 30, 2006.

"I'm sick of him, you know?" -- on Pedro Martinez, Dan Shaughnessy's Two Cents on FM Talk 96.9 with Bob Lobel, August 2004.


--------

“[W]hat I hated about that piece, is that the guy won’t use his name. … If the guy would use his name, I'd have a lot more respect for the piece. It’s easy to go off when no one knows who they are.” -- At a forum at the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, March 30, 2004.

"I'm certainly not going to reveal a source." -- Responding to the Dirty Laundry column, on Dennis and Callahan's WEEI show, Nov. 2, 2005.

"This dynamic made Theo less than popular with some of his hard-working friends in baseball operations." -- On Theo Epstein, Jan. 20, 2006. (Note: No source provided.)

------

"Everyone knows Theo is better-suited for the position than Jim Beattie, Jim Bowden, Ben Cherington, Peter Woodfork, Craig Shipley, Jed Hoyer, Dan Duquette, or Lou Gorman."
(and)
"Theo Epstein can come back. It's not too late. The Red Sox are looking for a general manager and he's clearly the best man for the job." -- on Epstein, Boston Globe, Nov. 9, 2005.

"Again, I choose to believe that Epstein is smarter and more mature than that. Much smarter. And much more mature." -- Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 2005.

“[W]e ended up having a good chat. I thanked him for everything. My column had nothing to do with his resignation.” -- Discussing Theo Epstein, John Molori's Sports Blitz, Nov. 21, 2005.

"[T]here wasn't much honor or glory in Theo's comportment after he left Fenway in that gorilla suit Oct. 31. Rather, he undermined the credibility of the entire Boston front office ... He revealed himself to be every bit the cutthroat politician Lucchino is. He's been at best, immature and at worst, duplicitous." -- Boston Globe, Jan. 20, 2006.

-------

“[Y]ou need to have that trust of the fan that the game is not fixed.” – at the JFK Library forum, March 30, 2004.

"Does anyone seriously think the Patriots went all out to win against the Dolphins? Does anyone think they should have? It's a fact of sporting life that pointless late season games are manytimes played with marked loss of enthusiasm, especially by teams 'saving' themselves for the playoffs." -- "objectivebruce" (aka The CHB), Jan. 29, 2006.

10 comments:

objectivebruce said...

Wrong! But then, what elseis new.

shawn said...

Is this guy related in any way to "Ed, the Objective Yankees Fan"?

Oh Bruce Almighty, please enlighten us as to how, exactly, the statements enumerated within are not contradictory and labile.

The problem is that we're all playing Shank's game by talking about him. But I guess ignoring him doesn't make him go away. Had I the time, I'd check the Globe's archives to see when he started making himself such a part of the story. Was it around the time of Curse of the Bambino or has he always written that way? Thankfully, I don't.

The Chief said...

Anyone else notice how objectivebruce always agrees with what Shaughnessy wrote. You'd think they were connected at the brain or something...

objectivebruce said...

So an objective reporter can't get sick of anyone? How does getting sick of someone mean you're a fan? To which piece is the JFK library quote directed at? Young man, you simply cannot attempt to skewer someone (and fail miserably, by the way) without identifying the piece the quote refers to. And what's the contradiction between saying he won't reveal a source and saying Theo is "less popular with some of his hardworking friends in baseball operations? Is there a point to this? And with respect to Theo's comportment after he left Fenway, Shaugnessey writes for an AM paper, so his comment published Nov. 1 cannot possibly refer to events after Oct. 31. That's journalism 001. And why is saying that you need to have the trust of the fan in any way contradicted by suggestions that the Pats tanked the Dolphins game? (And you have to use a comment not uttered by Shaugnessey to attempt to make some sort of point about contradictions, which really makes you look foolish)

Looks to me like your act is quickly running out of steam.

The Chief said...

Pretty defensive there, Dan, I mean "bruce."

The Chief said...

By the way, the comment, "If you are a fan, you cannot be an objective reporter" was made by Dan. (He said it to John Molori. It actually first ran on Nov. 21; Molori seems to have reused it yesterday.)

Mitch said...

Ha ha, "young man."

shawn said...

Bruce, since you're so racked up about cherry picking, what about the comment of November 9? "Best man for the job," and all that. I suppose you could argue that being the best person for the job and being a "cutthroat politician" are not mutually exclusive; in fact, I like some of that quality in my GM - running on sentimentality gets you an overpaid Pedro Martinez and his fancy new shoe for the next 3 years.

Not to speak for everyone here, but I believe that the problem a lot of people have with Shank is the Hearstian level of muckraking. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but when he goes from "smarter and more mature" (11/1) to "duplicitous and immature" (1/20) without offering so much as a shred of evidence as to why he's changed his mind, then it seems to me that he is just trying to write whatever he thinks will generate the most buzz, without regard for journalistic standards.

Or, maybe he really is that fickle, in which case, why on Earth would a major publication choose to make him the face of their sports columnist bullpen?

jenny said...

A question: Bruce, why do you come here? If you hate it when people criticize Dan Shaughnessy, why are you on this website? That's like me loving Larry Lucchino and then spending all my time on the Lucchino-Sucks.com message board (no, I'm not making that site up). It makes no sense and it's a waste of my time.

The irony of these quotes just sickens me. Take a look at them all together and then read the one about Theo being "immature" and "duplicitous." Dan is not immature or duplicitous! He did not:

1)vindictively call respected journalist Peter Gammons Theo's mouthpiece

2)whinily bash other journalists for not revealing sources while doing the same thing himself

3)make petulant public comments about Pedro Martinez

4)complain about the Patriots allegedly throwing games

5)spend half his columns saying how much he likes Theo and then suddenly turn around and viciously impugn his character.

No, Dan did not do any of that! Theo Epstein is the one who is immature and duplicitous, because he does not publicly slam people or mudsling or tell vicious lies about people or make unsubstantiated public accusations based on personal vendettas! Theo, how could you? You are a horrible person!

In all seriousness, I hope this guy's access gets cut off for good. I can't believe he has the balls stroke Theo's hair and publicly stab him in the back at the same time. Please, Dan, follow that love for Detroit you expressed today and move away!

Mitch said...

Actually, my second-favorite part of this blog is reading objectivebruce's comments. Just like how I can't stop reading every word the CHB writes.