Links

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Boston Sports Media Watch "Worst Boston Sports Column Contest"

Bruce Allen had an epiphany while on vacation a couple of weeks ago: Have the BSMW sponsor a contest to identify the worst Boston sports column in recent memory.

Prominently mentioned was one from the poisoned pen of our hero, Dan Shaughnessy.

Here's the link: BSMW Group Project - Worst Boston Sports Column.

Happy hunting!

19 comments:

Roger Bournival said...

Can't we nominate Shank in the Lifetime Achievement category?

Monkeesfan said...

The worst columns of all time have to be all those idiotic "Spygate" pieces (especially by non-sportswriters like Margary Eagan but also by sportswriters) the day of the Patriots-Chargers game in September 2007 lamenting Belichick and company and displaying mind-boggling ignorance of football and the rulebook.

I agree with Roger Bournival for Lifetime Achievement for Shank.

Anonymous said...

Like an Academy Award for hack journalists?

Oh, YEAH!!!

Anonymous said...

I looked up the definition of 'hack journalist' in the dictionary and it had CHB's picture next to it.

Anonymous said...

I love the contest but it's somewhat frustrating. I've read many columns from the local hacks that would qualify. The problem is I can't remember them.....shows you how much they stay with me. I guess I wipe my mind clean of them as soon as I'm done reading them.

ObjectiveBruce said...

Amazing that Mr. Allen lists two of the best sports columns of the past few years among his nominees -- Massarotti’s ”Nobody Wins This One" and Shaughnessy's Dirty Laundry column.

Of course, both are the antithesis of the columnist-as-cheerleader model favored by fans afflicted with a predilection against encountering objectivity and perspective.

Anonymous said...

OB:

What do you think Dan's legacy's gonna be?
When his grandkids ask, "What was grandpa like?"

The answer will be, "He was a mean-spirited, venal, vindictive man who's staggeringly average talent was eclipsed by bitter and misguided vendettas."

Okay? Thanks, bunky.

Your pal,

Timmy

Jerry G said...

Bruce...

Just how does Shank's 38Cliches column fit into the objectivity category? More like the slander category...

And if Lucchino/Steinberg hadn't spoon-fed the "dirty laundry" crap to the CHB there never would have been a column in that case.

Face it, Shank wants to be more than a columnist. He wants to be a PLAY-AH!

Anonymous said...

OB,

Jerry nailed it!

CHB thinks he is a PLAY-AH.

The Fool on the Hill ....

Day after day,
Alone on a hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he's just a fool,

What a "picther" of bull that CHB.

g

JERRY G said...

Thanks, g...

I think OB might be logically challenged.

Dave M said...

Shaughnessy was on the Dan Patrick Show yesterday and man, what an absolute joke. I thought he was as magnanimous as he possibly could ever be in his Globe column despite the usual slams; but all the pettiness revealed itself on Patrick's show. First, it was Shaughnessy who forced his way in on the DP show - calling in to offer his opinion. Unfortunately, Patrick seemed all willing to oblige.
All the typical crap - complaints about the blog; complaints about the politics; complaints about being being unethical for accepting 8M while injured; and complaints about being a big lug. Shank claims to be brave enough to call Schilling out on his inconsistencies but that Schilling always picks one member of the local media to pick on and it was poor little Shaughnessy.
Shank also talks about the Patriots and readily admits that he has no clue as to the nuances of the NFL salary cap system but then he has no troubles in providing commentary on whether the Patriots will pursue a trade for Peppers.

The man is a complete and utter disgrace

Dave M said...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/streamingaudio/

This is where you can listen to a disgraceful Shaughnessy

Roger Bournival said...

I got your perspective right here!

This week's mix of voluntary departures and layoffs from the Los Angeles Times includes (in addition to those reported earlier) these staff veterans:

William C. Rempel, a reporter and editor at the paper for 36 years. Most recently he's been a senior projects editor working on the paper's top investigations (and he will apparently stay until the end of April to complete some projects.) Before that Rempel was based in Chicago and in Los Angeles as a national and international investigative reporter, breaking stories on Troopergate, the Challenger disaster, the first World Trade Center bombing and global terrorism, among other subjects. He wrote extensively on the international arms market (and ran up some internally legendary expense accounts) and is the author of "Delusions of a Dictator," based on the secret diaries of former Philippine dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos. He's working on another book to be completed later this year.


Legendary expense accounts, you say? Mr. Rempel and Shank could swap war stories for hours!

Richard C. Paddock, a roving correspondent based in San Francisco, is leaving immediately. He was a former Times correspondent in Moscow and Jakarta who reported from almost 50 countries, including Iraq and Bosnia. Before he went overseas Paddock covered California from the San Francisco bureau, reported in Sacramento for many years, and had been based earlier in San Diego for the Times. He began at the paper 32 years ago as a reporter in the old Westside section.

Ann Brenoff, the Hot Property columnist since last year. She's leaving April 17, after 18 years at the Times, much of that on the desk that produces the editorial pages and Op-Ed section. "My plan is to run my own business -- offering after-school enrichment programs to schools, all centered on writing....I'm paying $50 an hour (course is an hour a week for 8 weeks) to any unemployed print journalist who would like to run a newspaper club in a school near their home. Tell them to contact me at afterschooldays@gmail.com."


No mention on how she plans on being able to pay $50 per hour. Perhaps it's being funded from her generous severance package...

Susannah Rosenblatt, a Metro reporter who for a time had the county beat. Her email to the newsroom:

From: Rosenblatt, Susannah
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:38 PM
To: yyeditall
Subject: Happy trails

Heartfelt thanks for five years of learning and opportunity, and to all who made the journey fun.

Lovely people make this newspaper.

Here's to weathering the storm,
Susannah


Batten down the hatches, Susannah. Don't want to wind up like the folks on the S.S. Minnow...

Roger Bournival said...

On a more temperate note...

Of course, both are the antithesis of the columnist-as-cheerleader model favored by fans afflicted with a predilection against encountering objectivity and perspective.

In other words, intentionally pissing off fans and readers (let's assume, for argument's sake, they are one and the same) is a testament to the noble columnist's objectivity and perspective (whatever the latter's supposed to mean).

Criticism of said columns by 'basement-dwelling blogger boys' (a rough, but accurate portrayal of well, us! by yourself, Shank and other defenders of the ever-shrinking, dying dead-tree media) is thus minimized and summarily dismissed.

Failure to incorporate self-analytical and self-correcting procedures in one's work product results in a recursive process that reduces the eventual answer to zero.

Thus, it is little wonder that a) Shank is hated by an ever increasing number of (from the Globe's perspective) readers, and b) on a macro level, why the Globe's readership is ever dwindling like the remnants of a white dwarf star.

Is that good business sense, OB?

Care to know why I haven't bought this fuckin' rag on a regular basis since 1995? I blame Shank!

Do you have the Saturday circulation numbers yet? Thanks in advance!

ObjectiveBruce said...

Never trust a journalist who rips another journalist claiming "spoon fed" sources. Rare indeed is the news story that has been broken without someone with an agenda getting a big mouth.

Never bother with a reader who claims disagreement with a writer is the result of an intent to intentionally (tick) him off.

AS for logic, what comes from Schilling about Shaughnessy is pure demagoguery. He saw that there were some people who didn't like the columnist, assumed it was a widely held belief, and set out to make himself the hero of this segment by launching attacks consisting of little more than name-calling. Schilling's biggest argument seems to be that the columnist never played major league baseball. Every time the Schilling tries to go on the offensive rhetorially, he sounds like John Kerrigan or Louise Day Hicks serving up slogans sans substance. Sure, Shaughnessy doesn't provide a treatise every time he takes a rip and Schilling is certainly entitled to jab and run as well. But its all based in a premise that Shaughnessy doesn't like Our Heroes and Our Teams and is therefore a horrid human being, rather than rational discussion of the observations made. A columnist's job is not to be a fan, despite the hypersensitivity of people with an emotional investment sports.

Maybe I have some sympathy since I recall the schoolyard roastings I received for suggesting that Joel Horlen, and not Jim Lonborg, deserved the 1967 Cy Young Award (I was right) or that Gordie Howe was better than Bobby Orr (I was wrong).

JERRY G said...

BO...

You entire entry is ludicrous. See my most recent posting.

dbvader said...

OB, Are you going to respond to my point about CEDE and admit your ignorance?

Anonymous said...

OB:

"Maybe I have some sympathy since I recall the schoolyard roastings I received for suggesting that Joel Horlen, and not Jim Lonborg, deserved the 1967 Cy Young Award..."

Ahhh. No wonder you hate the Internet, bunky.

It's a generational thing. So pull up a chair by the fire, put some albums on the hi-fi, and read the latest Red Smith column.

Your pal,

Timmy

ObjectiveBruce said...

Actually, my response on Cede was posted 24 hours (at 10:35 AM, March 25, 2009)before you complained about the lack of a response VB.

Rather than extensive discussion about the 1978 rewriting of Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code, or about Securities and Exchange Commission rulemakings in the aftermath of the paper avalanche of the late 1960s, I have explained the situation that made gave Cede and the NYSE controlling interest over Time Inc. in the years following the paper avalanche of the go-go 1960s (when the markets actually had to take Wednesday afternoons off for about six months to catch up on paperwork.)

However to recapitulate:
IN the early 1970s, there was no mandatory requirement that the registered shareholder provide the securities-issuer with information as to where proxy materials could be sent to reach the ultimate stake-holder.

Cede voted certain of the shares and withheld many shares. The result was control.

It doesn't vote the shares now. Two major reasons: a) 1970s rule-makings and UCC revisions required that registered shareholders and equities issuers make sure the stakeholders are sent proxy material and b) securities transfer has been largely "dematerialized"