Dan writes about the fan reaction to the Moss trade and his column. He concludes that the fans are cynical, win-at-all-costs, hypocrites.
Dan suggests that New England sports fans would welcome any athlete, regardless of his past history; It's all about the laundry.
He lists other controversial athletes fans might embrace. In Dan's typical modus operandi, he starts with the most outrageous suggestion, Pacman Jones. Moss has been arrested twice in twelve years, Jones has been investigated and/or arrested by police ten times in the last year or so. Included in those investigations, the use of his car by a convicted drug dealer, and his participation in a brutal battery of a stripper and the attempted murder of a bouncer. I don't think any fan base would so irrational as to embrace Jones, except for Oakland, of course.
The list continues with other athletes with issues, either in general or with Boston. I think in a lot of ways their comparisons with the Moss situation fail. Bonds would never work in Boston. He is attacking a sacred record while in the midst of convincing accusations of PED use. Others would never be embraced because of their role as the bad guys in Boston rivalries. (Ulf Samuelsson and Bill Laimbeer? Give fans some credit.) And others never rose to the same heights of antipathy, such as Alex Rodriguez.
Rooting for a sports team is largely irrational. Dan is correct in that regard. But I don't think his list of athletes is very fair to fans or captures the same questions that surround the Moss acquisition. He is no Pacman Jones or Barry Bonds and there is no long history of tormenting the Patriots.
What may be the best comparison is Dennis Johnson, which was brought up by Glenn Ordway this weekend. Dan addresses it and ultimately dismisses it. But it does seem to be the best comparison out there.
75 comments:
I hate this guy more than Ron Borges now. I didn't think it was possible.
The problem with the nappy-headed chb (I know that's redundant but it sounds so good) is that he forgets that fan is short for fanatic.
Boston fans watched the Patriots get one half short of the SB due to a flue-racked D and a receiver corps that lacked a game-breaking receiver. This off-season has been one of the best I have seen from ANY sports team in Boston.
And let's remember, Cory Dillon had some of the same baggage and yet he proved to be a winner. I bet you Dan would be more forgiving if the team had black uniforms and played in Oakland. People forget the outcasts that once made that team great. No one calls Al Davis or the Oakland fans hypocrites.
I swear the nappy-headed chb forgets he is supposed to write about sports and not about what gets his panties wedged in his nether parts.
The CHB ignores that it's not the fans' job to act as judge and jury over the players. That's for the legal system and the league office.
Further, based on various personal accounts I have heard, The CHB mau have some questionable ethics when it comes to alcohol and womanizing. So perhaps this is all projection on his part.
One of the most annoying aspects of today's column is the tone. On one hand, it's very pouty. On the other he sounds like a walk-on hypnotist making a cameo appearance on Gilligan's Island with the endless, "you love the Moss deal, you love everything the Patriots do." It's also easy to see he's telling Pats fans they've lost their collective moral compass, but at least the CHB hasn't. We're lucky to have such a morally and ethically upstanding ink-spiller as Mr. Shankington.
What I found amazing--aside from the inapt comparisons to other athletes--was just the flawed logic. He claims that if Moss had been traded to Miami, we'd all be saying that it was a mistake. Guess what? We would!
One of the main reasons people think Moss will fit in here in New England is the sound veteran and locker room leadership. Moss knows he has to stay in line here or he'll just be cut. Meanwhile, the Dolphins fan club is booing their new head coach off the stage after the draft. That franchise is a mess, which is exactly why Moss wouldn't work out there. It's just lazy work on Shaughnessy's part.
Shaughnessy's real problem is that he doesn't understand what it means to be a sports fan, especially in Boston. We take what the management gives us, and root unconditionally. Not all players are perfect (Carl Everett comes to mind), but we root them on anyway. He's so stuck in his clinically depressed, columnist mindframe that he can no longer relate to Boston fans. I kind of feel bad for the guy in a way.
What I find most ridiculous is that it his own change in beliefs over the years he ridicules rather than those of the fans. He was the bigges Clemens critic for the carrying the bag incident, yet now says its the fans who feel that way. Dan, stop trying to speak for fans, you know nothing!
He has well known episodes of drunken, idiotic, confrontational behaviour in public, he should call for the Globe to fire him!
In the heat of the moment, the adrenaline pumping, the fans heckling him incessantly a 25 year old athlete can act up, ala Moss.
What excuse does CHB have, writing his columns after the chance to think it out, rather than act on impulse the way the athletes do.
CHB reads this page, so YOU ARE A JACKASS AND 95% OF NEW ENGLAND HATES YOUR GUTS, AND NOT RANDY MOSS'. YOU HAVE A TWENTY YEAR HISTORY OF INAPPROPRIATE, LOUSY BEHAVIOUR. YOU ARE A DISGRACE.
Hard for me to top anything posted here except to say that the Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series was the worst thing that could've happened to his professional career, and unfortunately he's now taking out his frustrations on the rest of us. Adding chapters to his Bambino book was going to put all his projected grandkids through college.
I've not familiar with any of his drinking tales, and I suppose no one would want to list them here. Has he ever been mentioned for this in the Inside Track?
I really want to write to the CHB and tell him what an jackassclown he is. But, that would mean I admit to reading his "column".
What a friggin' quandary!
Wait, wait... Dan's a womanizer?
Can anyone elaborate? What kind of lines does Dan use when he's out on the prowl? Does he use the fake yawn? Is Dan a butt man, or a breast man?
And, even more importantly, what kind of women does the CHB snag? Elderly? Amputees? Snaggletooths? No tooths?
And, does Dan carry his press badge with him, as a conversation starter? Like, "Hey ladies, you may have heard of me... I write for the Globe! That's why I'm wearing this nifty press badge."
Someone please elaborate! Or, point me to somewhere with more information on the mating habits of the CHB!
agreed wholeheartedly with southpaw. I read this: //Dan suggests that New England sports fans would welcome any athlete, regardless of his past history; It's all about the laundry.// and thought...and?
for the sake of my sanity i have not read the column today, but i'm assuming dan's intimation is that this is a bad thing.
giants fans LOVE barry bonds. if david ortiz were (god forbid) embroiled in scandal, we'd probably still love him. nobody says "i am going to root for this team but only as long as they hire players who jibe with my every ethical expectation."
new england fans have their doubts about moss, too. but they're doing one thing the CHBs and John Dennises of the world aren't: they're waiting to see what happens before condemning the move. and attempting, in the meantime, to be optimistic.
i really wonder what it is dan expects people to do. burn their pats gear because their football team's newly-acquired wide receiver, who has yet to appear in the team's practice facilities, meet most of his teammates or play a split second of football for said team, has had character issues in the past? that'll show that stupid bob kraft!
even if we did, dan would probably just write about how we're all overreacting, like the hysterical, spoiled, idiotic new england fans we are.
then again, nothing dan shaughnessy writes about football surprises me anymore. he knows even less about football than he does about baseball.
By the way, have any of the Boston media who have been getting on the Patriots' case actually produced any sort of tangible evidence that the Patriots have "changed their ways?" Why is it that I read these two columns by CHB and don't see a single quote from Kraft or Belichick or Pioli and saying "we put ourselves on a higher moral ground than other teams" or anything like that?
I mean, that is supposed to be the difference between high-and-mighty journalists and us commoners who post on blogs, isn't it? They are supposedly more thorough and professional and do their homework.
And yet, all I've heard from the "pros" has been a lot of hot air and little evidence to back up their claims.
Anyone notice the irony that on the day CHB blasts the fans for welcoming the Moss trade, Mike Reiss writes a story applauding Tom Brady for restructuring his contract so the Pats could aquire Moss?
This guy should simply stop writing about the NFL. He has nothing productive to say about it, and seems to have some beef with Patriots fans as being somehow "lesser" than the Red Sox fans. As though Baseball was still the gentleman's game! Sheesh.
I guess anyone who works on Bowtie Boulevard would be 'clinically depressed.' His newspaper is in shambles and may not exist the turn of the decade. The anger and negativism you see pouring onto Nappy-Haired's keyboard is a by-product of the dour circumstances at his once-proud newspaper. It is quite funny to watch all the Globe sports henchmen now quite visible on the TV airwaves as they try themselves out for new careers once their broadsheet ceases to exist. Nappy-Hair, happily, does not translate well on the TV screen and no amount of appearances on 'Sports Final' or other Yack-fests will change that situation.
I agree that rooting for a sports team is inherently irrational. But how does that make WRITING about a sports team somehow meritorious, or at least worth a paycheck?
Shaughnessy is probably the only writer in America that can continuously insult and degrade his readers while offering zero content and substance. All he can do now is offer pathetic bleats like this, since he has exhausted any credibility with athletes and thus can't do his job as, you know, A SPORTS REPORTER.
It just makes me wonder what Shaughnessy needs to write before the vast majority of readers suddenly look up, realize these facts, and never visit his columns again, even for chuckles. This guy doesn't even merit the scorn heaped on him here.
I thought this one was dead-on.
Disagreement and controversy about a sports columnist's writings is why we have them in the first place, so everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can disagree. What is disturbing about the comments posted here is the personal venom that is inflicted merely because the columnist doesn't luv, luv, luv the local football team. The column produced differences of opinion, which itself validates Shaughnessy's writing.
Bad guys don't always change when they come to town. Look at Sidney Wicks (look him up), Curtis Rowe(look him up) and Marvin Barnes (look him up), joining what was the paragon of team play and the moral high-road, the Boston Celtics.
As for CHB Junior, unsubstantiated personal attacks are contemptible. Please provide time, dates, witnesses and the alleged "drunken, idiotic, confrontational behaviour."
Finally, the Boston Globe will most certainly be around at the turn of the decade. They're selling 386,415 of them every day, 200,000 more than that on Sunday, and there isn't a blogger not on a media organization's payroll who wouldn't trade mom's basement for a spot in the Globe city room in an instant.
But don't let me disturb the luv, luv, luv for the football team, and luv, luv, luv for cheerleading commentators. I don't share it, so obviously I am some sort of evil cretin.
Beth,
"then again, nothing dan shaughnessy writes about football surprises me anymore. he knows even less about football than he does about baseball."
I disagree with you there. Shank and/or OB both know a lot of useless stats for players that played their last game before I was born. Shank/OB likes to flaunt esoteric sports stats like a teenager with a new sports car. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.
OB/Shank,
"Bad guys don't always change when they come to town. Look at Sidney Wicks (look him up), Curtis Rowe(look him up) and Marvin Barnes (look him up), joining what was the paragon of team play and the moral high-road, the Boston Celtics."
Instead of making a list of unrecognizable names at me, why don't you just give me one or two examples and explain why they were detrimental to the Celtics?
I can imagine you in high school writing an essay on Alexander Hamilton. "Alexander Hamilton (look it up). Aaron Burr (look it up). Department of the Treasury (look it up). Ten dollar bill (look it up)."
As for Shank's/OB's back-to-back columns, great formula. Denigrate the team one day. Alienate the fans the next. The team sold their soul one day and the fans are morons the next. Way to get people to read your newspaper.
Everyone I've talked to about the Moss deal is willing to give this guy a shot. If he's a troublemaker, he's gone. The Pats lose a 4th round pick and a couple of million dollars. If he shuts his mouth and plays, the Pats win. What's not to like? Did you actually look at this deal before you condemned it?
Do I root for laundry? Sure. But if that's all Boston fans do, then why do Orlando Cabrera, Pedro, and Nixon (when he comes back at the end of May) get huge standing ovations at Fenway?
I can't believe their is a blog to rip a part a writer. It's the most foolish thing I've seen since I went on Curt Schillings blog and saw all those moron fan boys sucking up to him.
Thanks for stopping by, Mrs. Shaughnessy!
I can't believe their is a blog to rip a part a writer. It's the most foolish thing I've seen since I went on Curt Schillings blog and saw all those moron fan boys sucking up to him.
Go back to grade school and learn to write.
I'm going to have to agree with OB here, for the most part. It's within Shank's rights to disagree with the signing - even if he goes about it in just about the most ass way possible. Honestly, why are we bothering discussing this? If Moss implodes, he implodes, and yeah, the worst we lost is a FOURTH ROUND PICK (!!!!). If he gets good marks for playing well with others, then we all know that Shank will be crowing 5 or 6 weeks into the season about how masterful Belichick is, and how prescient the front office was, in making this deal.
It's true, bad guys don't always change (Albert Belle), but sometimes they do (Milton Bradley). Given the attitude adjustment Dillon underwent, I'd give the FO the benfit of the doubt on this, to see if Moss drinks the Kool-Aid. So color me cautiously optimistic.
Where I most find myself aligned with Bruce, however, is the contempt for the personal attacks. Criticism is spilling over into irrational hatred. It's sports. It's sports writing people. Take a step back, breathe deep, and tell yourself that really, it's not that important. If you have something to say about the writing, go for it. But please, for everyone's sakes, leave the personal stuff out of it.
(P.S. Paul, hysterical essay comment :-) )
"Anonymous said...
I can't believe their is a blog to rip a part a writer. It's the most foolish thing I've seen since I went on Curt Schillings blog and saw all those moron fan boys sucking up to him."
I can believe there's a newspaper that publishes a writer that rips apart the Pats, Red Sox and Boston fans. It's the most foolish thing I've seen since...well, it's just foolish.
You can criticize a team and even their fans (even though you claim to speak for them) without being mean-spirited and backing up your criticism with facts and valid points.
Ain't the First Amendment great!?
Finally, the Boston Globe will most certainly be around at the turn of the decade. They're selling 386,415 of them every day, 200,000 more than that on Sunday, and there isn't a blogger not on a media organization's payroll who wouldn't trade mom's basement for a spot in the Globe city room in an instant.
Once again, OB provides us a window into the mind of a Globie. Everything is reduced to a simple matter of "with us/against us," and they actually believe that everyone aspires to be inside their ivory tower, as though it is the ultimate goal one can acheive in life.
Funny how many people have worked for the Globe and gotten out of there as fast as they can. Chris Snow, remember him? He bolted on the Red Sox beat midseason. Michael Smith? Left right before Patriots season starts. And Michael Holley has used that paper like a two-dollar whore. If anything, anyone worth a damn has seen the inside of the Globe city room, then gotten the hell out of dodge as soon as humanly possible.
Oh and OB? You forgot to mention that those numbers you cite both used to be about 200,000 more a few short years ago. And you know that number includes all the freebies the Globe is handing out, all papers being hawked half-price by vendors outside T stations, and all the ones that return unsold.
Or another way to look at it, even if we accept those fudged numbers at face value, roughly nine out of 10 people in the Boston area DON'T read the Globe on any given weekday.
And the punchline to this, what you and your colleagues refuse to see, is that the Boston Globe used to be the nation's standard bearer for newspaper sports journalism. People specifically picked up the paper for insight and scoops they couldn't get elsewhere, and top-quality writing. Now that's been replaced by guys like Shaughnessy and Borges who offer the journalistic equivalent of a two-year old banging a spoon off a high chair. They're driving readers away just as fast as the old guard used to attract readers.
morrissey mole, I really like your style. I REALLY like it. If EVER there were an institution (and the people within) that deserved being 'taken down' a few notches, it's The Boston Globe.
My thesis is that the advent of the Internet (you know, the one Al Gore invented) pretty much started the downward decline of The Globe. At first, it was, "Goodie! We'll get all these NEW eyeballs to pay fifty cents to read our on-line version. We'll be rulers of our own Kingdom...like Castro in Cuba!" Alas, those 'fifty cents' never came. And the print version became just another pile of stuff you had to take to the dump every Saturday. Readers gave up, and advertisers gave up because the readers did. You could see the kingdom crumble before your eyes, and the writers and columnists reflected that in their angry, condescending pieces.
And worse, the newspaper gave up on news and decided to be a mouthpiece for the DNC. But the last bastion of pride and esteem--the Sports department--could be counted to always hold serve. But over the past couple years (and it's been a rapid fall), even that segment of the paper is in shambles. Rodents are always at their toothsome angriest when backed into a corner. There is a parallel here.
You know? It's true! CHB really does hate us (the collective fandom of Boston sports) and he really wants us dead! Wow.
In response to...
I can believe there's a newspaper that publishes a writer that rips apart the Pats, Red Sox and Boston fans. It's the most foolish thing I've seen since...well, it's just foolish.
You can criticize a team and even their fans (even though you claim to speak for them) without being mean-spirited and backing up your criticism with facts and valid points.
He's usually 100% right on about things. Most fans in Boston are just so blinded by their love for everything Boston sports they can't see the big picture. Everything he wrote in the column the other day about Moss being a bad guy and now that he's on the Pats he's one of us was 100% the way people feel about their team and their players. All he does is try and show that as fans we are blinded by a faith that our team can do no wrong. He's steps outside that realm of fandom and reports as if he is a non fan. I love the way he writes, it's very honest and sometimes we have a hard time accepting the truths of our faith. Apologies about the spelling of their earlier.
I thought this site was dead. I am saddened to realize this morning that it still exists. The tired cliche of ranting against Shaughnessy in Boston is boring. you chumps constantly regurgitate the same one or two ideas. GET A LIFE YOU CHUMPS!
i agree. you people are losers. is shaughnessy a bad writer? sometimes, yeah. does he deserve all the heck you sling at him? no one does. this blog is yet another example of the pathetic boston sports fan with too much time on his hands.
"GET A LIFE YOU CHUMPS!" said the 'anonymous' poster who decided to come here, read, and post.
Funny.
The Boston Globe is assuredly not on life support, and it's rather curious that people like to claim that it is because they don't like what a columnist writes about an admittedly controversial move by a football team.
Globe circulation has dropped, but not by anything close to the 200,000 decline from "a few years ago" claimed by Morrisey Mole. Sept. 1998 to Sept 2006 it's about 80,000. Revenue is transitioning to on-line and Scarborough reports that combined on-line and print penetration is 47 percent of the market.
Sometimes people don't like what they hear and blame the messenger, the people who have such a visceral reaction to criticism of a football team are a lot like the right-wing nut bags who don't like the news and blame the newspaper, or like this guy Chris who repeats the discredited Al Gore internet line while trotting old the old right-wing nonsense about a newspaper being a "mouthpiece for the DNC"
But the intense hatred expressed because someone offered an opinion on signing one of the bad boys of football suggests deeply-rooted immaturity at best.
Father of Our Country.
An Essay by Paul
Back before I was born, some guy I never heard of did some stuff that\'s not relevant to me now. I have no idea what happened, but I\'m sick of people talking about it. They make me angry by talking about this old stuff. I think this guy I never heard of is probably why we have so many Washington streets in the country today. This is very confusing to me. Instead of this stuff from before I was born, let\'s talk about something relevant to young hipsters like me, such as the vote totals on American Idol.
I should post my name, Chris? So paranoid conspiracy theorists like yourself can start another blog that skewers me? no thanks.
the hysteria about the downfall of the globe is so nebulous it becomes amusing, not offensive. this hype seemed to really gain momentum during theo-gate, when the wackos came out of the online woodwork, spewing vitriolic nonsense about petitions and politics. the effort to turn this into a debate about ethics in journalism instead of what it really is - a mean-spirited and somewhat puerile attack - is just another example of how the blue/red divide in this country seeps into all aspects of daily life. even sports - and that's unfortunate. ALMOST ALL NEWSPAPERS ARE SUFFERING, CHRIS. Almost all circulations are down. Print media is on its way to obsolescence, a fact that is too-often carefully omitted on this site. the papers that continue to thrive are the tabloids, and surely you wouldn't apply your morals and high standards to them, because that simply wouldn't be so convenient, would it? that's right, I'm calling you a hypocrite.
I think it's funny that all the anonymous comments can be tied back to a single URL.
Next time, try using a different PC.
i think it's funny that you felt the urge to go investigate URL's. I think that's funnier than posting several times anonymously. I think it says more about you than it does me.
At least you had the sense to change computers this time, Mrs. S.
Objective Bruce:
You're wrong. The Globe is on it's way out.
Revenue cannot be replaced by online. From a business-model standpoint, it just doesn't work.
The Globe's credibility is only slightly above the Metro. The only people who give two shits about
The Globe (New York Times Lite), are people who work there.
You, and your fellow Globies are irrelevant.
But keep telling yourself everything's fine.
Whatever.
One more thing, OB:
Tell me, honestly, that The Globe does not have
an agenda.
And that Marty Baron is not an unethical boob.
I'm new to this blog, but the fact that a Globe employee has the time to vigorously respond within minutes to any posting pretty much speaks for itself. Sort of like French people with their 35-hour work weeks who haven't bothered to notice that while they are ranting against the rest of the world, their economy grows at 1.5% per year and of course the fact that their military is now 35% comprised of Arab immigrants and there workforce is similarly constituted is a negligible detail. Of course "those people" are going to go to the wall and give their all for chauvinists who shun them and expect to be rewarded for their bile-laden mediocrity with a groovy early retirement package. BTW, is it true that Dan is banned from the Boston Harbor Hotel for vomiting on the carpet right on the sunny part of the floor? And since The Globe could barely pick up the tabs at the old Elliot Lounge, there was nothing they could do...
In response to:
"Anonymous said...
Father of Our Country.
An Essay by Paul"
Your a funny man/woman (see, I don't know since you decided to take a swipe at me without at least using a fake name. Props to Objective Bruce!). No big deal. For the record, I loathe American Idol and "reality" TV. Does that make me tragically hip?
If we were talking about American politics, and I said "Wow! The latest judgment by the Supreme Court flies in the face of the Federalist Papers". To which you respond, "What are the Federalist Papers?" and then I said "Look it up." That wouldn't be much of a conversation and I would come off as a know-it-all.
Same thing for dated sports references, like the Ernie Shore or Clive Owen references. Why don't you tell me how he's relevant to the conversation instead of belittling me by telling me to "look it up"? You and Bruce accuse me of being intellctually lazy. I am educable. Tell me what you mean.
I don't mind learning about the past. But history is more than just names and dates.
I thought this site was dead. I am saddened to realize this morning that it still exists. The tired cliche of ranting against Shaughnessy in Boston is boring. you chumps constantly regurgitate the same one or two ideas. GET A LIFE YOU CHUMPS!
Anon 5:06/5:09, I don't think anyone who logs a comment then checks in three minutes later with a comment agreeing with yourself has the right to tell anyone to GET A LIFE.
But here's a question for you, anon ... how bad must Shaughnessy be if complaining about him can become a cliche in and of itself?
Ever notice that anyone who dares to
criticize the Globe is a "right wing nut bag?"
Maybe I'm just a fan of objective journalism.
Aside to anonymous 10:04/10:06:
There is little doubt that the Boston Globe will be around to publish your (and my) obituary.
And no, I don't work there, never have and never mete Shaughnessy.
But yes, many of the people who criticize the Globe (and in particular those who claim the paper is the mouthpiece of the Democratic National Committee) are, in fact, right-wing nutbags who repeat the same old tired nonsense about the paper being involved in some sort of liberal conspiracy, but are sans proof.
IF anyone is fluent in Esperanto, it would be appreciated if they could or would translate Juli La Chuli's stream-of-consciousness linguistic meanerings into English, since its incoherence must be due to a language problem.[ I think the point is something about how the work week in France as a cause/effect relationship with staffing levels at a Boston newspaper. This is quite intriguing, and once it is translated into English may actually be an interesting concept.
OB/Dan:
So the Globe is going strong? Oh, okay.
(But once Tom Oliphant cancels
his subscription, there'll be no one left.)
And, just so I'm clear on this, the Globe is
unequivocally, absolutely objective and without
an agenda?
"only" 80,000 people have stopped subscribing? That's something to brag about?
At OB's paper, they used to brag about all their national sportswriting awards. Now they brag that they'll still be in business in three years.
I have a question that is actually about the subject of the article, Randy Moss, and how he is written about by the author, Dan Shaughnessy.
I know that the Boston media is not a huge fan of Belichek and the Patriots. We've all seen enough examples from Borges, Hector Luongo, Shaughnessy, Buckley, Felger and anyone else who cared to give their opinion on the Pats. Even though they have been hugely successful in an era where the salary cap is engineered to prevent that type of thing, it doesn't stop the pundits from criticizing at will with next to no proof.
My question is this, why is it that the Patriots and Red Sox get crucified by the media while the Celtics seem to get a free walk?
I know the Celtics are pretty much irrelevant in the sports landscape. To me it seems like this team was intetnionally trying to loose this year and yet not one media outlet was outraged. No one wrote articles demanding that the Celtics give back ticket holders there money. Why is it that the Boston media has given Danny, Doc, and Wyc a free pass on what they have done to that franchise. It is the laughing stock of Boston Sports. I would go so far as to say the Revolution are more popular than the Celtics.
Oh and I also did not notice anyone blasting the Celtics for aquiring Telfair and then letting him go after his inevitable troubles with the law. Why is that? Why do the Pats and Sox get killed by these guys and not the Celtics?
hey helen,
get a life, chump.
HeeHee...Objective Bruce, you are so correct that my post-lunch time "meanerings" were a bit on the esperanto side and may "has" been something "as" a cause of a few pops with my lunch. Anyway, thanks for putting me in my place. I take the next-level abortion that is your syntax to be the height of intentional irony, no?
man, I wish I had anon 3:49's life. Who wouldn't want to be anon 3:49?
It's nice to see a few Globe apologists here, so that they can be reminded how hated 'their' newspaper is. Enjoy the comfort of telling us that The Globe's downfall is being shared across the industry. Yes, I'll go with that. But The Globe is demonstrating worse numbers than many other 'big city' broadsheets. Have fun defining 'bad' in whatever terms you like.
The Internet, I enjoy reminding people, is the 'killer app' for the newspaper industry. Besides siphoning away paying readers, the Internet has spawned the wonderful Blog...which happily took Borges down a few pegs and is doing the same to Shaughnessy. There's no 'safe haven' anymore for the crooks at The Globe. Decades ago, you had a 'Letters to the Editor' section where people could vent. The Internet is that 1,000-fold, and torches everything deserving of being torched. Shaughnessy wants to play with gas? This blog specifically and the Internet in general represent a nice book of matches. POOF!
9 PM ... notice how all the pro-CHB commenters always vanish right around the time the early edition of the Boston Globe is being edited.
One might do well to note that as bloody as the Globe's circulation decline has been, it's a) not as bad as Globe haters would like and b) a mosquito bite compared to the much, much worse situation over at Wingo Square. But the Herald's days are numbered.
I'm still waiting to see evidence that the Globe is a "DNC mouthpiece."
Newspapers will be redefined in the post-internet era, as they were redefined after television discovered the profits to be made from TV news. But one guy sitting in a basement pecking at a keyboard simply will never replace the ability to seek, report and analyze the news in the way that the great newspapers have done. No blogger could ever have uncovered the problems at the Big Dig, or in the Catholic Church the way newspapers did.
A lot of nonsensical venom is spewed by those who don't like what they read, whether it be reporting inconvenient facts (which sets the right wing kooks into fits of rage) or whether it be sports commentators who fail to treat adult millionaires playing kid's games like they are deserving of some sort of deification.
What's missed in all this, of course, is that the Patsies have moved into a new era, in which people of dubious integrity are freely accepted and encouraged to seek careers here as long as they fulfill their role as football players. They couldn't do that for several years since the marketing re-make of the teams' image was designed to move beyond the drunken-lout image of Patsie fandom (a sad reality that led to a years-long ban on Monday night appearances because the fan base included too many people who believed it to be a civic obligation to be stinking drunk by kickoff.)
The Patsies have, through careful marketing, shed that image of the team and its fans being no-class morons and, with their fresh and family-friendly image, now have the marketing capital to be more Oakland Raider-like in their solicitation of players. The wholesome image that they have won through aggressive marketing (which includes public image moves like revoking season tickets of people who use the wrong washroom out of desperation) provides some measure of balance to offset any indignation that arises as the team gleefully adds thugs to the roster. The image has been re-made, to the extent that Patsies as bad boys will be acceptable to the masses.
I beleive the Globe still employs sports reporters who have been (or are currently) suspended for inappropriate conduct. Is it only members of the media who are deserving of second chances?
I'm led to believe that blatently sexist comments and plagarism are serious infractions in the wourld of Journalism.
Why don't we give the same break and consideration to atheletes that we do to the Globe's ink stained wretches?
OB/Dan:
A few things — first, you didn't answer my direct questions as to the objectivity of the Globe. Didn't think you would.
Your observation of, yeah, it's bad at the Globe, but not as bad as it is at the Herald. Wow, what a rebuttal. Pathetic.
Your comment alluding to "great newspapers."
The Globe never was, and never will be a "great newspaper."
Your referring to the Patriots as the "Patsies."
Mean-spirited and reeking of desperation. Much like your columns.
Finally, and I quote, " ... people of dubious integrity are freely accepted and encouraged to seek careers here ..."
It's worked for you, hasn't it?
Who cares about The Globe? There must be some aphorism about kicking dinosaurs while they're down, even if they never did quite manage to overlap with humanity during their self-defeating time on earth.
Bottom line on the blogosphere is that it's like any new paper except with no barriers to entry with regard to all those pesky unions and distribution costs. The dude in his Mom's basement is actually more like a guy with an office and a life, who isn't beholden too the rancid infighting that plagues Globe staffers and would make even political campaign fundraisers shudder with disgust. The now wide-open world of information has confirmed to even the most sheltered Bostonian that it wouldn't take more than a half-dozen thwarted, drunken monkeys to reproduce Dan's turgid regurgitations of unchanging bile on a bi-daily basis. Meanwhile, Dan's dream world has already long fallen, between the Red Sox usurping his cliche-pimping sideline by winning the World Series and the likes of Bill Simmons, Deadspin.com et al opening the floodgate of his obsolescence and forcing him to confront his shriveling incompetence years ago. Think of him as the "travel agent" or the record label A&R man: too drunk on left-over money from the squalid inefficiencies of his business to notice that his rank existence couldn't help but attract the notice of people who are not repellent, asking themselves, "how can such a thing as THIS possibly be?" Sports and sportswriting satisfy a basic need in any society – and not the one where we foment and given to all of our most base bitterness, envy and insecurities – and it doesn’t take much to contribute in a meaningful, educated and informed way and help people to integrate something that forms a core part of their lives into something more interpersonal and shared. I guess everybody also needs a sewer, however; so thanks, Dan, for your stench-absorbent ginger rag.
O/B posted:
But one guy sitting in a basement pecking at a keyboard simply will never replace the ability to seek, report and analyze the news in the way that the great newspapers have done.
Two of the more significant sports-related stories have been broken first on blogs. The first was Ron Borges' plagiarism. That started with a kid in Seattle reading online and then comparing it to one of his hometown news writers articles.
The second story was the moving of Paplebon from starter back to closer. If I remember correctly, CHB and the rest of the Boston sports writers got an expenses paid trip with the idea being that news from the Sox like this would be broken by them. And yet, if I remember this correctly, ESPN's ticker line said that 38pitches.com broke the story first.
I think this shows two things. First that people who are willing to look for the scoops and put a little effort in can come up with good and objective stories- no matter what type of media the use to tell the story to others.
The other part that it shows is the true fallibility of the newspapers. I am convinced that many of the papers in this area view the blog as a mere fad that will go away at some point. CHB's article about 38pitches is a good example of this high-handed arrogance.
This truth is they are not leaving and only a few of these all powerful writers have adjusted to that fact. CHB and writers of his ilk need to learn this fact or they will not survive. What it means is that he must be fair in his criticisms, back up his statements with facts, and be far more aware that he does not write in a vacuum from which the readership can not criticize him anymore.
Very good point, anon. CHB and his brethren can keep sticking their collective heads in the sand and believe all is well. The fact is, their insular, arrogant world has changed forever. Whether the choose to accept it, is up to them. OB/CHB continual lashing out would seem to prove this.
OB/CHB is similar to the buggy-whip manufacturer who continues to insist that the world will always need buggy-whips.
You know, if the case is that the Patriots organization has somehow lost its moral compass, how is it that you "journalists" have spared Tom Brady? He's the guy who adjusted his contract to try to get Randy Moss a better deal. So, obviously, he must be either bady deluded or, in fact, a classless, win-at-all-costs moral cypher. Right? Your boy Tom not only endorsed Moss', he worked actively to bring him here! If CHB or his twin, RTP (Ron the pinprick) have any integrity or journalistic objectivity, I can't see how Tom Brady, who is the face of this organization, the icon that this organization holds up as proof of its wonderfulness, I can't see how he gets a pass. Can you?
Well, yes, because this Moss issue is more about the inherent egomania in the Globe sports dept. than any real attempt to try to inform readers.
And again, to those who don't understand why this site is up: It's because we remember a guy (and a newspaper) who had standards, creativity and loved sports. That guy is no longer there.
OK, here you go, Mr Anon. of 8:50:
First, I'm not Dan. And he's probably grateful.
Second, the Globe has been one of the country's great newspapers for the past 30 years.
Now as for the great blog news scoops, I hardly think a teammate blogging a bit of news qualifies as one of the great investigative journalism projects of our time. The guy who found that Borges was doing a cut and paste in a notes column which included a disclaimer that information from other writers was used certainly did a commendable job and performed a public service. But it's not the same as developing sources and stories.
Blogs won't go away, and they add a certain something to public discussion. But it is rather ironic that blogs gleefully predict that they will outlast and outlive newspapers when most blogs devote most of their energy to recapitulating things they come to know due to the reporting and editing work of ... newspapers! Sports game stories, of course, are he exception since every game is on television. But for the most part, the coin of the realm is information and most of the information comes from traditional news souces
Quote: "One might do well to note that as bloody as the Globe's circulation decline has been, it's a) not as bad as Globe haters would like and b) a mosquito bite..."
This, boys & girls, is what we commonly refer to as 'rationalizing.' It happens when someone faced with dire circumstances tries to convince themselves and everyone else that things 'really aren't that bad.' A funny (if transparent) attempt here.
OB/Dan:
Wow. What color is the sky in your world?
You're right. Everything's great.
The Globe is without agenda and a bastion
of objectivity and journalistic excellence.
This whole internet thing is just a fad.
Should pass any day now.
Good point.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Hope you've put a lot into your 401(k).
P.S.:
The Globe is where Times folks go when they
can't cut in in New York.
Let's say you're not Dan. Fine.
Admit, at least, you work at the Globe.
And please address the issue of Globe objectivity and
lack of agenda. I've asked the question three times now, and you won't answer.
Juli,
Last three sentences: spot on!
yes, Obtuse Bruce, the Globe's circulation loss is a "mosquito bite." If you were bitten by a giant moquito that sucked about a third of your blood out of your body, that is.
this whole ongoing debate about the state of the Boston Globe is tedious.
anon 8:38: So why are you here? What type of moron keeps checking in with something they find tedious?
"So why are you here? What type of moron keeps checking in with something they find tedious?"
Um, the type that enjoys a unionized sinecure and is addicted to doing absolutely anything to avoid a minute of honest work? He's long fallen and can't get up.
a unionized sinecure? lazy?
I'm not quite sure how you make that connection, Juli. But then again, neither are you. ('Um', I think you need a break from Dennis and Callahan)
'Um', once again, this site proves to be more about condescending ideological rants than, 'um', anything else.
'Um', pity for you, Juli, that, 'um', Dan Shaughnessy is the excuse you, 'um', need to flap your gums about unions and, 'um', politics.
Oh, and Juli: um, I think your thesaurus needs a breather.
"So why are you here? What type of moron keeps checking in with something they find tedious?"
Um, the same kind of moron who finds Dan Shaughnessy so "offensive" that they feel the need to keep reading his columns and checking in with this blog?
Anon is talking to himself again.
Which word was it that taxed the periphery of your vocabulary, anonymous? Was it unionized or sinecure? Neither word is buried any deeper in the lexicon than "anonymous." But if you can point me to a more precise two-syllable word than sinecure, I'll be happy to use it in the future. Interestingly, nowhere in my post did I use the word lazy; the connection between "unionized sinecure" and "lazy" is one that you made all by your lonesome, simpleton. I guess when you have years of experience defending the indefensible, you begin to get ahead of yourself and defend yourself from the obvious accusation before it's even been made. Now get off the Net for a few minutes - it's time for your coffee break.
Also, who are Dennis and Callaghan and is there anything in any of your posts that is not condescending or ideological? Or were you merely engaging in that annoying 21st Century athlete/celeb rhetorical practice of referencing yourself in the third person?
I might someday be brain damaged enough to root for the guys in the article, but I'll never be so far gone as to root for Shank.
Post a Comment