Comments on: Michael Gee on Playoff Sportswriting

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:19:33 +0000

Columns, huh? So who are we talking about here? Are we talking about Shaughnessy? Callahan? Maybe Bob Ryan? You guys keep throwing out this 99 percent statistic, as if 99 percent of sportswriters are Dan Shaughnessy, getting paid to opine on sports. First of all, you have no grasp on the depth of knowledge held by guys like Shaughnessy, who are SUPPOSED to be general thinkers who know a little bit about a lot. But beyond that, 99 percent of sportswriters are actually beat reporters and local writers who cover their sports faithfully, who know the ins and outs of the teams they cover better than most fans could ever hope to know them. In short, they fit the model Gee is writing about here. So go ahead and throw those numbers around, as if you actually have any concept of how the average sportswriter thinks and works. Off base doesn’t even begin to describe where the attitudes are here. Might as well just stick to the lame personal insults like MarkB and that other chucklehead. At least they’re based in fact and not just some anti-media fantasy you’ve drummed up.

By: MarkB

MarkB — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:28:05 +0000

Every time Michael Gee writes an article, a pretty college girl somewhere makes a face and says Ewwww…. gross!

By: Butch

Butch — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:58:19 +0000

“otherwise you’d just come off like ignorant know-it-alls who can only speak in generalizations because it fits their argument.”

LMAO…Andrew, you just described about 99% of sportswriters with that statement. (no, I don’t know this because I know them personaly. I know this from reading their columns)

By: L3s

L3s — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:26:50 +0000

Well Jonny, it was a 1:30 matinee and the douche I was sitting next to on that day was rooting against the B’s, and he’s a notorious Sox/baseball player hater too. He made no secret about “hating these assholes.” I got the point of Gee’s piece, way before your clarification. The point of my post that WHOOSH went over your head was that this asshole was being paid to watch a pro hockey game and constantly forever bitching about it. I don’t want him to cheerlead for the Bruins or whoever in print, but don’t fucking complain about getting paid to write about sports and athletes. Go work in a factory like my father did for 40 years and then come to me bitching about work.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:08:38 +0000

What I find amazing is how many commenters have such extensive personal relationships with so many sportswriters. I mean, that’s the only way statements like, “Most sportswriters are insecure and generally filled with a degree of self-loathing. Stepping away from “The Pack” is a major move for many of them,” could ever be made with any degree of accuracy or objectivity. Of COURSE you all know every writer you read personally, right? Because otherwise you’d just come off like ignorant know-it-alls (the oxymoron most befitting a sports fan, for sure) who can only speak in generalizations because it fits their argument. So, good thing that’s not the case, then, right?

By: sam

sam — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:19:06 +0000

the blame doesn’t fall with the run of the mill sportswriter but rather the editors and producers that are orchestrating the topics they want covered and the roles they want filled.

are the editors at the herald and globe and the producers at weei, nesn, espn are looking for fresh perspectives from writers who are running afield from the pack or that may in fact hold the pack in contempt.

By: Jonny Boy

Jonny Boy — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:51:01 +0000

I can recall sitting in the Bruins press box at the old Garden next to a certain individual who, when the B’s tied the game late in the 3rd, slammed his fist on the table and cut loose with a “mother F-er”.

You missed the whole point of his piece, that writer was obviously rooting from himself, think about it, the Bruins just tied it, meaning anything he had written to that point was most likely useless and the game going to overtime would only bring him closer and closer to deadline which just means more and more annoyed editors!

That was the whole point of the article and WHOOSH it went right over your head…the guy was not rooting against the B’s, he was rooting against a late game tie, he was rooting for himself!

By: Big D-man

Big D-man — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:33:24 +0000

Sam’s post, I think, hits the mark. Most sportswriters are insecure and generally filled with a degree of self-loathing. Stepping away from “The Pack” is a major move for many of them. Thus, we tend not to get a lot of independent thinkers. We get guys who want to be “right”, or at least as “right” as they think they can be without p*ssing off their peers. As for the column itself, I have to admit, the Michael Gee of the 21st century isn’t as interesting as the guy who wrote for The Phoenix in the 1980s. Too bad.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:58:26 +0000

That’s pretty bad.

So I guess the “no cheering in the press box” rule is superceded by the “it’s OK to curse in the press box when things don’t go your way” rule.

By: sam

sam — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:20:52 +0000

the greatest sin of the majority of sports-infotainment writers is not holding some infantile and mythical construct of a “common man” in contempt, it is that they are bad at their craft.

as long as the writing is good what does it matter if they hate the players, coaches, and fans?