Even by the low standards Dan has previously established, today's column is particularly bad.
This is one of these columns where you have got to wonder if Globe management and senior editors ask themselves, "Is this really the guy we give top billing to?" As a reader, I find myself constantly asking "How is it possible that a person be paid so handsomely for producing such mindless and condescending drivel?" Heck, I imagine that even Objective Bruce is sitting back thinking, "Not even I can defend this piece of garbage".
Shaughnessy criticizes Belichick for being evasive about his plans for watching this weekend's games after Belichick says yeah "I'll definitely watch it..." How is that evasive? Just because Coach Bill can't/won't describe where he is going to watch the game, Shaughnessy rips him. Shank, while it may be the case that you have loads of time to plan your game watching, does it occur to you that Belichick has a few more higher priorities than you and hasnt given much though to where he will watch the game? Can you blame Belichick for being a smart ass?
Shaughnessy concludes with one of his typical condescending, insult the reader lines when he says:
So there. This weekend you are just the same as Richard Seymour. You are glued to the TV, watching football. Your heroes are doing the same thing as you. If you are a Patriots fan, this should make you feel warm all over.If you have read Shaughnessy long enough, you know he despises when adults worship professional athletes (his constant criticism of 40 year olds who wear Schilling jerseys). In this context, Shaughnessy's last line is just another in a long line of sarcastic jabs at his readers
--By the way, Dan, I am a Patriots fan and it does not make me feel warm all over when you tell me that professional football players watch professional football games on TV--is this some great revelation on your part?
What is really ironic is that once again Dan makes a jab at his readers for their hero worship and yet he writes a column that perpetuates a characterization of athletes as being a different breed -doesnt the fact that he feels compelled to describe the TV watching habits of pro athletes feed this hero worship fire?
2 comments:
In attacking Belichick for being evasive, Shank makes the same mistake Peter King makes when he makes similar arguments on Dale Arnold's Friday radio interview (BTW, can they get Bob Neumeier back, please?) - King and Shank assume they are entitled to revelatory answers from Belichick when they refuse to realize they're not entitled to anything from the Patriots; they'll give answers that are not harmful to the team, but nothing more.
And Shank, how much good can Belichick glean from the TV broadcasts of the games? Belichick would need to see the whole field to be able to get anything he would be looking for out of the broadcast, things we can't see on most telecasts because we as fans are not properly trained in what to look for.
And Shank, so 40-year-old guys wear Schilling jerseys - you watch youself on television with that self-satisfied smirk on your face.
When a sports columnist cannot penetrate well enough to cover his subjects--Schilling and anyone on the Patriots would fit this bill--then Shaughnessy seethes with rage. He is no longer the haughty, elite sports columnist for a 'Major Metropolitan Newspaper.' He has become 'everyman.' He is collecting a paycheck yet delivering nothing...because he is getting nothing. You can 'see' his rage throughout: "How DARE Schilling communicate directly to MY readers through HIS blog. The NERVE!" Or, "How DARE Belichick not answer my questions as completely as I expect and demand them to be?" This is your Shaughnessy of the past several years and into whatever future exists for a media institution that is creating icebergs for it to hit.
Post a Comment