Boston Sports Media Watch

I mentioned back in May that one of the most helpful people I encountered in the early days of this site was Bill Griffith of the Boston Globe. He had offered advice and always answered my emails and silly questions even before I had started the site.

Hard to believe, but we’re coming up on a year since Griffith accepted a Globe buyout after nearly 40 years at the paper. I’ve tried to keep in touch with Bill, but it seems he’s had no problem keeping himself busy in the last year.

Since I’m out of town today, I thought it would be a good time to catch you all up on what Griffith has been up to recently, as well as to get his thoughts on the local media scene and the past glory days of the Boston Globe.

BSMW: Bill, first of all, I want to say thanks for agreeing to share a few minutes with us here…I know your schedule is pretty busy these days. Fill us in on what you’ve been doing since we last saw you in the role of sports media columnist at the Globe. Been to Italy I hear?

BG: NBC called the day my final column ran, offering a job editing their in-house newsletter, The Daily Olympian, in Torino. It’s not a newsletter in the traditional sense but more a detailed advance on the day’s events. Working with the folks in the research room — experts in individual sports — was an honor. I’ll never forget Andreas, our Alpine skiing expert, aplogizing for his writing in English. He’s an Austrian who’s fluent in at least six languages and correctly predicted at least half of the events.

There were two bonuses to the trip.

1. It gave me a chance to visit my daughter and son-in-law in Milan for 10 days following the Games.

2. The whole trip provided a six-week separation from the Boston sports scene, the longest by far in my adult life. If you’ve been away for 10 days or two weeks, you know how you lose a lot of the threads of local stories so it made a clean break from the local media coverage for me.

Since then, I’ve taken a part-time bookkeeping job (something different and nicely structured), been fortunate to be able to keep doing some part-time auto writing. In addition, I bought a motorcycle (don’t tell my mom) and learned how to ride this summer without damaging myself or anyone else.

BSMW: Sounds like you might have more going on now than you ever have had. Let’s revisit some of the things you saw over the course of your career. You were a Globe “lifer”, I think you told me you had been with the paper since 1965. You worked with them all; Gammons, McDonough, Fitzgerald, Montville, Ryan. They made up the best sports section in the nation. What made these guys so good?

BG: The unbeatable combination of hard work and amazing talent. Ray Fitz and Willie were outstanding athletes in their own right and could have been pros if modern medical techniques were around to treat their career-ending injuries. In addition, they all had/have encyclopedic memories. On top of that, Gammons, Ryan and McDonough could/can crank out copy as quickly as they could type, which was prodigiously fast. When they had time, RayFitz and Leigh would labor over their copy; when they were under the gun, they, too, were amazingly fast.

Leigh later told me one of the big reasons he left the biz was because of deadlines. He’d spend all day laboring on an early column — and some of his best work was in those columns — then do a rewrite after a late-night event (World Series, MNF, playoff game) in 20 minutes and not be able to remember what he’d written after he hit the “send” button.

Credit Ernie Roberts (then Globe Sports editor) for assembling the cast, which also included many others, including Lesley Visser, Kevin Paul Dupont, and John Powers, and then Vince Doria for taking that group, adding to it, and bringing the section to a higher level.

Being part of that group for 25 years as assistant sports editor was an honor.

BSMW: That bunch certainly set the bar very high, and I think the current Globe staffers probably struggle to live up to that legacy. Let’s turn to what you used to do in your last few years at the paper…the sports media beat. Susan Bickelhaupt has been doing a pretty basic weekly sports media column in the Globe. It’s different from how you and the previous guys (Jim Craig, Howard Manley) used to do it, less notes and items, and more of focus on a single media topic. Do you find it surprising that neither the Globe or the Herald has a full time media columnist, when sports media is such a huge deal here in Boston? The New York dailies each have at least one, and they’ll write several times a week.

BG: I was surprised when they cancelled the column, which was the main reason I took the Globe/Times buyout offer. The New York papers have reason to keep the columns because they’ve got the networks in their backyard.

BSMW: I guess that makes sense, when you bring that up about the networks. It still surprises me however, because it seems at times here in Boston the media is as big a part of the stories as the actual games and players are. Speaking of media that makes themselves the story…do you ever listen to WEEI now that you’re not getting paid to do it?

BG: Yes, but there’s no tape recorder or notebook next to me and I’ll hit the button when they go off on tangents or into their interminable advertising blocks. I like Mike Felger’s ESPN Radio show when I’m driving in the afternoon (can’t get it at home except on-line).

BSMW: Felger will be glad to hear that. Do you think the incredible ratings of WEEI are a direct result of the success of the Red Sox and Patriots in recent years, or in the talent of the hosts at the station?

BG: They’ve ridden the Sox-Patriots axis very well, but credit Jason Wolfe for being way ahead of the curve in establishing the station. He had the luxury of “growing” the audience and establishing WEEI as the dominant sports radio station in town and — love ‘em or hate ‘em — having the guts to yank Imus and go with Dennis & Callahan. That was a major gamble, but he hit the jackpot and it’s still paying off for him. And, behind all the fat-boy jokes, Glenn Ordway is a radio genius. At least five years ago he was talking about the New England-wide syndication of the station that is now happening.

BSMW: Moving back to the newspaper world…what do you think the outlook for the newspaper business is going forward? The struggles of the Globe and Herald print editions have been well documented…will they snap out of it, or is this a slowly dying industry?

BG: If we had the answer to that one, we’d be rich men. The advertising pendulum has swung way over to the Internet and will come back somewhat.

BSMW: I think we’re a ways away from the newspaper dying out completely, but I think at some point, the printed copy is going to fade away. People will get all their news and stories on personal devices that they can carry anywhere with them. There’s even “digital paper” that could have some sort of role in that…but I think I just revealed some of my geek background there.

Well Bill, I want to thank you again for taking some time to talk. I’m really glad to hear that things seem to be going well for you there, and also grateful for your thoughts on the above topics. We’ll try to do this again in the future.

——

A reminder to check in with the Patriots Game Day page. In addition, you can get all the Patriots news and blog entries from today on the Patriots News Mashup page.

The view from the opposition is on the pages of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Star Tribune also has a Vikings Blog .

Popularity: 2% [?]

Listening to sports radio is often a frustrating experience for the intelligent sports fan. This is especially true in Boston, where the main sports radio station bills itself as “sports entertainment” rather than “sports talk.” As a result, many of the hosts are woefully ill-informed and don’t seem to have a clue about some of the most basic sports facts, history, and concepts; they’re more interested in creating controversies and story lines that they can easily pound on for days. To make matters worse, the people who call the shows are generally even less informed than the hosts. How many times have you heard a guy call in and ask a pathetically stupid question that could be answered in five seconds with Google? Or worse, the mouthbreather who calls and either asks a questions like “Hey, um…I was wondering…um…what do you guys think about, um…Mike Lowell?” or suggests a ridiculously one-sided trade “Do you think we could trade Taverez, Seanez, and Jason Johnson for Huston Street?” Don’t be one of those callers.

Occasionally someone will call and actually try to make a good point, only to be quickly shot down by the hosts, who twist things around on them or bully them. There is usually a moment in each call when the caller could say something or make a point that would set the host back a bit, but most callers fail to seize that crucial moment. If sports radio had better callers, would the overall product improve? Not by much, but we could at least enjoy hearing the arrogant hosts squirm a bit on their oversized rear ends. Here’s how you do it:

Be Prepared

No, I’m not talking about preparing a script that you’re going to read from; prepared scripts are generally ponderous and even if you have a good one, you’re not going to be given the time to read it unless you’ve already built up a relationship with the show. When I say be prepared, I mean know what you want to talk about, what points you want to make, and how you’re going to overcome objections. Anticipate the responses you’ll get, and be prepared to answer them. After all, you listen to the show; you should know how these guys operate. If they respond to you and you hesitate or stammer even a little bit, you’re done. You probably want to write some things down—not a script, but perhaps an outline of the points you want to make, how you will overcome objections, and the facts relevant to your argument. Sound confident and speak intelligently.

Be Cordial

Compliment the hosts when you get on the air, even if you’re loath to do so. Say you’re enjoying the show and that they’re doing a great job, etc. Then, get into the topic you wish to discuss. When they try to distract you, (see below) keep your cool. Don’t raise your voice too much; don’t get agitated. Above all, don’t insult them—that’s the quickest way to get hung up on, which will then result in the hosts declaring victory while at the same time pretending you said something awful: “You can’t say that on the radio, caller, you just can’t.” Remember they have the power of the seven-second delay. If they jump in and interrupt you, patiently wait and begin your point again, though you may need to rephrase it slightly.

Use Cold, Hard Facts

Know your topic front to back. Have references—if you don’t, you’re going to be shot down, because the host is going to say, “Give me an example” or “Tell us when we said that.” This is where preparation is crucial; your call is a success or a failure based on it. You might need to have some notes because you likely won’t be able to rattle all these facts off the top of your head. This seems like a lot of work, but the reason the hosts are able to shoot people down so quickly is because if someone can’t prove a point, they can ridicule that person and move on to the next caller. You need to seize the moment. Don’t let them off the hook, if you’ve got them on the ropes. You’re allowed to question the host. When they make a ridiculous statement, ask them politely but firmly to explain what they said and what they’re basing it on. Radio hosts are infamous for just “throwing it out there” and not getting called on their statements. Sports Radio hosts are infamous for sitting on the fence with big issues and for denying that they ever said certain things. They are experts at twisting logic (see below) and getting the caller off the original point that they’re trying to make. If you’re going to beat them, you’ve got to have a cool demeanor and all the facts at your disposal to be prepared for what they’re going to throw at you.

Stay on Mission

When radio hosts recognize that they might be in trouble with a caller who threatens to make good points and make them look silly in the process, they resort to a number of tactics to try to discredit the caller and make it look like they, themselves, were right all along. Many of these tactics follow well-documented logical fallacies; there are a few in particular that are favorites of talk show hosts, especially here in Boston.

Straw Man – This might be the most common tactic. Using this technique, the host misrepresents the position of the caller, refutes it, and then pretends that the actual position has been refuted. Or they ignore an actual stance and substitute a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that stance which they can then attack. The Red Sox have stated they are looking to develop their farm system and build for the future. In the host’s world, that becomes: “The Red Sox aren’t trying to win this season!”

Slippery Slope (or the Camel’s Nose) – In this scenario, the host warns that permitting some small act will consequently lead to a larger, undesirable act or circumstance. Never mind that this usually won’t be the case; the host will act as if it is a certainty: “If the Patriots don’t give Deion Branch what he wants, they’re going to have a very hard time signing free agents next year.”

Appeal to Probability – Another favorite in Boston. For years it was, “The Red Sox will never win the World Series because they haven’t done it in XX years.”

Biased Sample – Host polls his two co-host sycophants, takes a couple of calls from nitwits and then declares, “Everyone in this town out there right now thinks that Josh Beckett is a stiff and that the Red Sox are in serious trouble.”

Argumentum ad nauseam – The Red Sox aren’t trying to win this year! The Red Sox aren’t trying to win this year! The Red Sox aren’t trying to win this year! Repeat that every afternoon from 2 to 6 starting in March and going through the season, and a few people are bound to believe it. That doesn’t make it a true statement, however.

These are just a few logical fallacies used regularly by sports radio hosts. In order to beat them, you need to be aware of their tactics and how they’re going to try to twist your argument against you.

They may also resort to ridicule or bullying; it’s all part of the act. It’s also a desperate attempt to get the heat off of them and back onto the caller. They might start shouting over or at you and try to get you to retaliate, at which point they can hang up on you or get you to give up and hang up the phone.

Conclude by restating your main points

If you’re fortunate enough to get through your whole call, take 10 seconds or so to really emphasize the purpose of your call by quickly restating the points that you just made.

If you can follow these steps, then you have a shot at beating the frauds that sit behind a mic for four hours a day. If we can get prepared callers who actually make good points and challenge the hosts, then it’s just possible we will have a better product to listen to.

Like this story? Digg It!

Popularity: 4% [?]

Yesterday, I woke up to an already brutally hot and humid morning and shuffled into my home office to check out the morning’s sports offerings. Despite the obvious decline of the newspaper business, I still have a little twinge of anticipation when I open up the Sunday papers, with their various notes columns, features and coverage. As I sipped my iced coffee, I browsed though a fairly good Dan Shaughnessy column on the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, which, if you read Game of Shadows, you already know everything you need to know about.

A bit further on, I came across Peter May’s Basketball Notes with the title of “Truth is, Pierce’s deal could have waited.” Knowing that Peter likes to get his shots in at Danny Ainge and the Celtics, I wondered how he was going to work this one.

So I read it.

Then I read it again.

Then a third time.

No, it wasn’t because I was amused by May’s line about James “Thanks Dad II” Dolan, but instead, I re-read this column three times because I really wanted to believe that May wasn’t as clueless as I thought he was about Paul Pierce’s contract status. I even went onto the BSMW message board to point out the May column and hope that someone else would see what I was clearly missing. May sums up his position on the Pierce extension thusly:

I understand this is a contrarian line of thinking, but I also can’t fathom why the Celtics were so eager to get this done. Why not wait another year, see where the team is going, see how Pierce responds, and go from there.

OK, here’s the problem. Pierce has a player option after next season, so if the team didn’t re-sign him, they risked allowing him to hit the open market as a free agent.

Now, I tried really hard to understand where May was coming from here. I figured he HAD to know about the option…didn’t he? So assuming he did, and still wrote the article, what is his angle? That Pierce might not be worth giving a three-year max extension to? OK…that point is actually debatable. I come down strong on the side of re-signing Pierce before he hits the market, but you can debate whether Paul Pierce is worth hitching your wagon to for the foreseeable future.

So May might’ve written the article trying to be a contrarian (as he states) and taking the view that signing Pierce wasn’t worth it. That the team would be better off seeing how things go this season and then taking the risk of letting him go to free agency if things didn’t go so well next season. Again, that is IF May knows that Pierce can opt out after next season. It’s a bad position to take, in my opinion, but still feasible.

However, the truth is that Peter May had no clue that Pierce held an option on his contract for next season. That is borne out by this section from May:

Sure, you would have run the risk of the “disrespect factor” by waiting. But here’s what the Celtics also should have been gauging: What teams were going to have cap space in the summer of 2008 and did they really think any of those teams were going to keep that money to sign Pierce? In other words, were they negotiating against themselves?

Unless that 2008 is a typo, (though we’ll see in a moment that it is not) then May reveals here that he believed that the Celtics had Piece locked in for the next two seasons (thus the reference to Piece hitting the market in ‘08) and that they extended him for three beyond that. Not convinced? Well, this should cement the case that May, the top NBA writer for the Boston Globe, had no idea of the contract status of the best player of the local team:

This is not to suggest Pierce didn’t merit an extension. But he still had two years left on his previous deal and while he is clearly the Celtics’ best player, do you really think he deserves $20 million a year for three more years when he still has yet to prove he can carry a team?

Whoops. May asks:

What would have been the downside had the Celtics decided to wait a year on the extension?

The downside of course is that Pierce could’ve opted out of his contract and become a free agent next summer…and the Celtics could’ve ended up with nothing.

This is a joke…The Globe continues to embarrass itself with this type of coverage.

Let’s review again here, for those inclined to defend Peter May (and I know you’re out there.)

The point here is NOT whether it is a good idea to sign Paul Pierce to a max extension or not. That issue is debatable.

The point here is that the lead NBA writer for the largest and most influential newspaper in the region had no idea about a very important contract clause for a player that he covers which many casual fans were aware of. Further, no one on Morrissey Blvd caught this mistake, either.

There’s nothing to defend. The whole premise of the column is invalid because May thought Pierce had two years left on his deal, when in fact Pierce could opt out after next season. Had it been true that the Celtics had Pierce locked in for the next two seasons, the premise of May’s column, while likely unpopular, would still have had some merit to at least consider. But it doesn’t. He looks rather foolish at the moment.

All of this aside, the Globe has been way behind on this whole Paul Pierce contract from the beginning. Steve Bulpett in the Herald has been providing updates almost every day on the status of the extension, and has had the details about Pierce’s option correct the whole time. From last Monday:

Pierce has two years remaining on his current contract, but he can opt out of it and become a free agent next summer. Schwartz dismissed talk that Pierce might like to take that route and join a team with a better chance at the title.

Schwartz is Pierce’s agent. So there doesn’t appear to be any issue here with the Herald having mixed up the details here. Bulpett made several references throughout the week to Pierce’ option.

I went out for the day and returned in the early evening to find my inbox jammed with messages about the column and about the Globe’s basketball coverage in general. This one stood out:

Dear Bruce,

I hope to God you mention how badly Peter May screwed up in today’s Sunday Globe. He’s allegedly the “basketball expert” for a newspaper section that used to mean something. Well, here’s the kind of expertise we get from him: He wrote an entire column slamming the Celtics for signing Pierce to an $60M extension when he allegedly had “two” years remaining on his current contract — including such classic lines as “What was the hurry?” and “What would have been the downside had the Celtics decided to wait a year on the extension?” and my personal favorite, “I understand this is a contrarian line of thinking, but I also can’t fathom why the Celtics were so eager to get this done” — without f***ing realizing that Pierce had an out clause next summer and could have been an unrestricted free agent.

Can you imagine if a Red Sox writer or Pats writer screwed up that badly? Would they ever hear the end of it?

I’m sure May is a nice guy … but I can only judge him by his production over the past 20 years. It doesn’t seem like he has given a crap about basketball since Bird retired; if anything, he comes off like a middle-aged white guy who openly dislikes the sport and can’t relate with most of the players. Even worse, he gets a free pass because so few fans follow the Celtics diligently anymore and none of the media members seem to give a crap anymore except for MacMullan/Holley/Russillo. A good example of how far the basketball IQ has fallen in Boston came over the extended July 4th weekend, when John Wallach (subbing on the Arnold/Holley show) tried to claim that Ben Wallace would be a better fit for the Celtics than Kevin Garnett because KG “doesn’t rebound,” which was the equivalent of saying you’d rather have Jim Thome over David Ortiz because Big Papi “doesn’t hit for power.” And you wonder why nobody cares about basketball in Boston anymore.

In all seriousness, why can’t the Globe hire someone who actually likes basketball to cover the team? And where were the copy editors on this one? Not one person working for the Globe’s sports section knew that Pierce, the single best Celtics player of the past 15 years, could have opted out and become a free agent next summer? Really? Nobody knew the contract status of a Boston player who’s one of the top-15 guys in the league? Why have copy editors then?

I just can’t believe how far this newspaper has fallen - we have now reached the point where the alleged lead basketball writer for the paper had no idea that the team’s best player could have been a free agent in 12 months, and even worse, slammed the Celtics for re-signing him because he was so desperate to be a contrarian (and only because he doesn’t have the talent or the passion to make this team more fun to follow). I’m so tired of this crap - it’s really sad that I trust the opinions/information of complete strangers on a message board over someone who’s employed by the Boston Globe to cover the only basketball team in town. What a disgrace.

Please call May and the Globe out on this one. It’s one thing to be mediocre at your job; it’s another thing to perpetuate a complete falsehood because you were too lazy to do any research. And you wonder why newspapers are going bankrupt.

–SIMMONS

That of course, was Bill Simmons of ESPN.com. I got a lot of other emails as well, many with the same points.

Chalk this one up as the Globe being the Globe…

Coming out of the All Star break, the Red Sox dropped three out of four to the Oakland Athletics, including yesterday’s 8-1 defeat. You can check the coverage on the Red Sox Daily Links page and the Bay Area Sports Pages.

Jon Couture admits to initially being disappointed with “Feeding the Monster“, but says that a strong finish to the book really makes it a rewarding read. Couture also touches on my Manny column from last week and looks at Sam Horn’s only spot in the record books.

Kyle Busch won the Lenox Industrial Tools 300 up at New Hampshire International Speedway yesterday. Michael Vega, David Exum and Mark Labore report on the race, which basically went into overtime due to a caution flag on lap 298. Fluto Shinzawa looks at a collision between the last two winners at NHIS, Tony Stewart and Ryan Newman. Allen Lessels goes inside pit row at the speedway. Exum’s notebook has more on the Stewart/Newman dust-up, while the Globe notebook looks at Denny Hamlin’s day ending early.

The Patriots start training camp next Friday, and the camp previews should be starting up shortly. Today, Jonathan Darling says that rookie Jeremy Mincey might remind some people of Willie McGinest. Mike Reiss gets the ball rolling on positional previews with a look at the QB spot.

Other Weekend Coverage:

Putting Peter May’s column aside, here are a few other highlights from the weekend:

Nick Cafardo catches up with Theo Epstein’s former right hand man Josh Byrnes in the Baseball Notes. Tony Massarotti tried to respond to reader email in Covering All Bases. Alex Speier examines how impressive David Ortiz has been, especially in the post-steroid era. He also had a bit on how the A’s lost out on Jonathan Papelbon after drafting him in the 40th round in 2002 and not getting him signed. Art Davidson looked at former Sox hero Dave Roberts having the season of his career in San Diego. Shaun Tolson took Herald readers inside the Green Monster.

In his NBA Notes Steve Bulpett talked to Walt “Clyde” Frasier about whether Paul Pierce and Allen Iverson could play together. Scott Souza reviewed the Celtics summer league efforts in Vegas.

Jerome Solomon says Deion Branch is a victim of poor timing in the Football Notes. Solomon and the Globe get some props for having the only NFL Sunday columns the last two weeks. Training camp previews should start up this week…

Kevin Paul Dupont says that it isn’t a lock that Bruins first round pick Phil Kessel will head back to college in the Hockey Notes. Stephen Harris in his NHL Notes reports that the Bruins originally offered Pat Quinn their head coaching job, but he turned them down. Douglas Flynn thinks Zdeno Chara could be the next Bruins Captain.

NESN has Red Sox/Royals at 7:00. ESPN has Braves/Cardinals at 7:00.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Since we’re on the All Star break, I’m mixing things up a little bit today with an original BSMW column looking at the the media’s role in the public perception of Manny Ramirez.

I’ve also made this article available in PDF Format. Please feel free to download it, print it out and leave it in the lunchroom of your school or office, or even at that buddy’s house who listens to WEEI incessantly and believes that Mike Adams is hilarious and Manny is nothing but a lazy bum. You can also email it as an attachment to those co-workers who can’t shut up about Manny not playing in the All Star game tonight.

Manny - Perception vs. Reality (68k)

Update: Will Carroll on Baseball Prospectus had this to say about Manny:

I won’t be seeing Manny Ramirez in Pittsburgh. The top vote getter is taking a disproportionate amount of heat for missing the game, even getting openly questioned on yesterday’s Fox telecast. Tim McCarver said the worst thing about his knee injury was “remembering which leg to limp with.” It’s easy to say that Ramirez is faking an injury, but almost as easy to actually check on the injury. Ramirez is suffering from a small tear in the medial meniscus of his right knee. It’s an injury he can play with, but one that can “grind,” a bone-on-bone situation that is unpredictable and painful.

Now on to the article:

Manny Ramirez - Perception vs Reality

Let’s pretend for a moment that tomorrow Manny Ramirez suddenly decides to do what Corey Dillon recently did in Patriots mini-camp, and hands Jeff Horrigan of the Boston Herald a sheet and asks him to read it. The sheet is a list of the career accomplishments of Ramirez. What would that list look like?

• .314 career batting average. 459 (and climbing) career home runs. 1479 (and climbing) career RBI.
• 2nd All Time in Grand Slams ? 20 (Leader - Lou Gehrig, 23)
• 5th All Time in At Bats Per Home Run - 14.08
• 6th All Time AB / RBI Ratio - 23.08 (23.0819) (Active Leader)
• 9th All Time in Slugging % - .5988
• 10th All Time in OPS - 1.0076
• 2002 AL Batting Champion
• 2004 World Series MVP
• 8-time Silver Slugger Award Winner (1995, 1999-2005)
• Had a 17 game postseason hitting streak which is tied for longest in baseball history.
• Has 20 postseason home runs, good for second all time. (Bernie Williams has 22)

That’s a very impressive resume, should Manny decide to retire right now.

But let’s do a little projecting here. Manny has 24 home runs right now. Let’s give him 20 more the rest of the season. That will put him at 479, around 20th all time. Manny has two more years on his Boston contract, and let’s say he plays three years after that, somewhere, retiring at age 39. So that’s five more active years after this one. Let’s say he averages just 35 home runs a year during that span. He’ll end up with 654 home runs, which would be good for 5th on the all time list. (As currently constituted)

(Click below for the rest of the article)

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 1% [?]

Occasionally I get accused of only directing attention to the negative. In reality, even though this is a media watch/critic website, I do try not to get too caught up in just calling people out and harping on mistakes and agendas. Today, to mix things up, I decided to come up with a top ten list of people in the Boston sports media whose work I particularly enjoy. In doing so, I came to the realization that ten wasn’t really long enough, and I also have to stress that the list below is not in any particular order.

1) Tom E Curran
He’s got a terrific sense of humor, doesn’t take himself too seriously, and yet is still a very good reporter. Curran worked his way up from the bottom, originally writing for a newspaper on the Cape, while delivering the same papers in his car. He doesn’t get caught up in petty agendas and seems to get along with just about everyone. He even makes the Big Show worth listening to.

2) Greg Dickerson
Dickerson gets a bad rap from some, but I think it’s undeserved for the most part. He’s a guy who clearly enjoys sports and doing what he’s doing. He’s worked from doing radio in Worcester and on the weekends on WEEI, to working his way up over at FSN to become co-anchor of the nightly Sports Tonight program. Dickerson also has a sense of humor, and the ability to poke fun at himself. He generally doesn’t take controversial stands just to call attention to himself, although it seems he does draw the short straw during show prep from time to time.

3) Jackie MacMullan
A very good columnist, I wish we had more in the Globe from Jackie. Both in her column and on television, she’ll tell it like it is without resorting to unnecessary dramatics and hysterics. I appreciate that.

4) Bob Ryan
My admiration for Ryan is well documented on these pages, and while he has gotten carried away on occasion while on the air, (The Joumana Kidd episode stands out) his passion is not faked. His columns are always worth the read, and he should be recognized as the face of the Boston sports media.

5) Dale Arnold/Michael Holley
Some will say Holley is too milquetoast, while others will claim Arnold is little more than a Bruins toady. What both of them really are, however are rarities - nice guys in sports talk radio. In a genre filled with faux tough guys who have to yell and scream and be angry all the time, these two are a sharp contrast.

6) Mike Fine
A beat reporter for two teams (Red Sox, Celtics), Fine also contributes columns and other coverage for the Patriot Ledger. You don’t see him on TV or hear him on the radio all that much, and he probably prefers it that way. But as a guy who covered the Celtics during the Bird years, Fine has a wealth of sports knowledge and experience and it shows in his work. I’m always on the lookout for new stories from him.

7) Mike Gorman
A class act, Gorman has called Celtics games on TV for a quarter-century now. He is the ultimate professional and to me, the ideal team broadcaster. You know he wants the Celtics to win and do well, but still can remain objective and keep partner Tommy Heinsohn grounded. It’s almost a comfort to turn on a Celtics preseason game in October and see Gorman ready for another season courtside.

Bob Neumeier
I confess, I wasn’t always a Neumy fan. But the “voice of Bob Neumeier” on the whiner line changed all that for me. Now, every time I see Neumeier on television and hear him speak, that caller is all I can hear. It makes me smile without fail. He was also pretty good as a host on NESN and analyst on CBS4 Patriots pre and post game shows.

9) Michael Felger
Another choice that some might question. I like Felger because he’s on the ball when it comes to the Patriots, isn’t afraid to ask the tough question, and is willing to question the “established” media way of doing things. He probably won me over back in 2001-2002 when he would take on Ron Borges and Nick Cafardo on a weekly basis over the whole Brady/Bledsoe controversy. Sure, he’s got his annoyances, but to me, the positives outweigh the negative by a healthy margin, and I enjoy his reporting and radio show for the most part.

10) Shira Springer
Springer took a lot heat in some corners in her early days on the Celtics beat, but I think she’s grown into a fine reporter for the Globe. She works hard, is consistent and also doesn’t get caught up in agendas swirling around the media. She makes low-key radio and TV appearances and is informative in those sessions.

Popularity: 1% [?]

As most of you know, this website is only a part-time venture for me. I still have to work full-time, and because of that, I’m not able to do as much as I might like on the site. Many days my work here is limited to daily links which I put together before I go to work in the morning. If I do something more extensive, it needs to be done during off hours, something which isn?t always conducive to having a life.

If I want the site to reach its full potential, something needs to happen. It has to be able to pay the bills and take the place of my full time job. I’d need to build up the site enough to the point where I would not have to work at a 8-5 job during the week. That might never happen. To make that leap would be huge. I could try to build up a few other streams of income, which I’m attempting to do, but those also require time and attention and will need some more time to develop.

What?s the quickest way this could happen? The only way I could see this happening is if I were to get a sponsor who would be able to pay me equivalent to what I make working to do the site full-time. Getting that sponsor would be tough; as I would have to make sure that I am still able to have editorial control over content, so as to ensure that the spirit of the site lives on.

The sponsor could have their name be the only advertising on the site. It could be a naming-rights style deal (”BSMW Presented by Dunkin”) or just a “branding” of the site to reflect the sponsor. I’d be open to ideas in this regard.

Here’s an idea of what you might see on Boston Sports Media Watch if I were able to devote eight or more hours everyday to it:

Daily Links

The Daily links would continue to be a huge part of the site. If BSMW were my job, even more emphasis would be placed on getting them done daily in a timely fashion. They might even be expanded to include out of town links on the local sports scene, as well as regular afternoon updates for the papers and blogs that update later in the course of the day. I would check blogs and other sources more regularly for updated news and content that would be of interest to readers and Boston sports fans.

Sports Radio Log

Part of the full-time BSMW site would also include logs and updates of what is being discussed on the various sports radio shows as they happen. I see this as being in more of a traditional blog format, with short, frequent updates on what’s happening and what noteworthy things are being said. This might be in a separate area from the daily links area.

TV Show Notes

I would also make a point to view as many of the local shows as possible. I do this now, but don’t always find the time to comment on them. If I had my days free, I would make sure I DVR?d the shows and made some notes on the content of them. This would be another way of keeping track of some of the outrageous statements, predictions and analysis that often occurs on these programs.

Television/Radio Listings

There would be a box on the page somewhere so you would know at a glance exactly what was on the airwaves at that moment, as well as in prime time. I wouldn’t just include games, but also radio shows, the various nightly and weekly television programs, and even things on other networks that would be if interest to the locals, such as old games on ESPN Classic, or Sports Century features on Boston athletes.

More Columns/Features

With more time to devote to the site, and likely more knowledge as a result of my increased exposure to all of it, I’d have a chance to do more columns and opinion pieces on what trends I see and hear in the local media and how I think it is influencing the casual sports fan.

One column idea that has always intrigued me is the idea of a BSMW-Retro. In this, I would periodically focus on some Boston sports media member and look at their influence on the era in which they worked, or examine incident of the past and relate it to the modern-day internet age audience. From what I know now, there would be no shortage of personalities and stories that I could draw from to create some interesting features.

I’d also like to include a few more media interviews. I’ve done a few very small ones for book reviews and as a part of the Friday columns, but there would be an audience for deeper interviews. Talking to reporters, columnists, announcers, etc about their jobs and how they view them.

Podcasts

I experimented with this very briefly last year, but never released an “official” podcast. I’d need to take some time and figure out what I wanted to accomplish should I attempt to go back to this idea. Would it be a recap of what happened that day or week in the media? Would it be something where I’d interview someone, or have a guest on the podcast with me? There’s some potential with this, but I would need to think about this much more in detail before I would consider bringing this to the site.

Mailbag

I get plenty of email from readers of the site. I try to keep up with it all, but there are a few that slip through the cracks each week. However, I do get a lot of the same type of email. The same questions asked by several different emailers. Many readers bring up interesting points, or even just want to rant a bit. It might be beneficial to answer some emails as part of a mailbag format, making sure more questions sent to me via this method are answered. I might only have to answer a question once on the website instead of having to answer it 10 times via email.

More Blogs

I’ve thought that a Boston Sports Business blog and a Sports Law blog might be interesting additions to the site. I have in mind who I’d like to author those blogs, and have thought about contacting them to gauge their interest in participating in such a project.

Those are just a few of the ideas I’ve had. In fact, I’ve had many more, but they escape my recollection right at this moment. I think you can see that there is a lot of potential here, and I’d like the opportunity to expand it as much as I can. If you have ideas for turning BSMW into a full time venture, I would certainly be interested in hearing from you.

Tomorrow: Best/Worst Sports Radio Host

Popularity: 3% [?]

In a previous post, I outlined how BSMW came to be. It’s been four years since that time and I’ve learned so much since those early days. Here are just a few of the things that have become clear to me.

1) I never want to be a sports writer. ( But I knew that already)

I knew that being a beat writer or even a columnist for a paper was not something I wanted to do. The hours are horrible, the pay isn’t great and you’re away from your family much of the time. Believe it not, I have a ton of respect for the guys who go out there day in an day out and do a solid job covering the game or team to which they are assigned. If you’re someone who likes routine and steadiness, this is not the profession for you. Having a chance to chat with to many of the local representatives of the Boston sports media certainly confirmed my feelings on the job that they have. For many, it’s little wonder that they scramble to increase their income by doing as many radio and TV gigs as they can get. Their articles are among the most-read in the paper, and yet even within their own offices they’re treated as the “toy department” of the paper. It’s not a life of glamor, that’s for sure.

So for anyone who thinks I’m just a frustrated sportswriter who desperately wants to be one of “them”, think again. I have no desire for that life.

2) Sports media people are the thinnest skinned people on the face of the planet.

The site couldn’t have been more than a few months old and still only attracting mere 500 visitors or so a day when I got my first indignant email from someone in the Boston sports media. Sadly, it’s so long again, and so many computer/email accounts ago that that historic email is now just a cyber memory. I can’t even remember who it was from, though I believe it was from someone at a smaller media outlet. It wasn’t Shaughnessy or Borges or any of those big time guys. I remember thinking at the time “What I wrote was not really all that harsh”.

It was just a foregleam of things to come. The site grew, and I heard from more and more media people. Sometimes it was positive, thanking me for helping their work reach an increased audience. Much of it was negative. Shaughnessy contacted me within that first year. Since that time, I’ve come to realize that he does this all the time. He, the master of the cheap shot, is perhaps the thinnest skinnest (?) person alive. I’ve heard tales from readers who tell me of the time they emailed him to complain about his column, and then received a confrontational phone call within an hour. The thing is, they hadn’t left their phone number. They emailed from their company email address and he tracked down the phone number of their company and asked to be put through to them. He emailed me, demanding that I call him, so, not knowing any better at the time, I called. His first words to me were “Did I sleep with your wife or something?” the conversation went downhill from there, and I believe it ended up with him insulting me and hanging up the phone. Since then, I vowed never to talk on the phone with the guy again. He’s tried. He’s demanded that I call him, he’s mocked me, telling me that I’m afraid to speak with him. Not true. I simply know that it would be an unproductive conversation where he would shout me down, insult me, and hang up. I explained to him that I am perfectly willing to have a dialogue with him via email, and that the content of our conversations would be kept private. He didn’t like this, knowing that this way, a record would be kept of everything he said. We went back and forth for a bit, and each email opened by saying that I was too chicken to talk to him. After we went around for a while in this manner, I haven’t heard from him since.

Sadly Shaughnessy is by no means alone in this behavior. He is the most egregious in this area, but many of his colleagues in the media and at the Globe are very similar to him. I’ve always wondered if the media people who have no qualms about taking personal shots and getting on athletes who complain about the media grasp the irony of coming to me complaining that I am treating them unfairly. The next person is an exception to these ones:

3) Bob Ryan has just as much passion in an email or private conversation as he does on a radio or TV show.

In sharp contrast to Shaughnessy, there is is Ryan. The guy genuinely loves sports. He loves talking sports. If you disagree with him, he’ll talk to you about it, passionately, but without the insults. Most of the time, I get the impression that Shaughnessy and others just dislike sports and someone feel demeaned with their lot in life of covering, writing and talking about sports. You’ll never feel that way talking to Ryan. The guy loves his job, and that is what makes him the best, in my opinion. People tell stories about running int Ryan at a restaurant, or on a plane and then finding themselves involved in a deep and animated discussion about the 1984 Celtics or about the Pete Carroll Patriots or any number of topics.

There are others in the market who have passion for what they do and are civil in conversation. I’ve had some great experiences with some media types. I’ll always remember the guy who got a promotion, and a week or so later, he sent me a hand-written thank you card stating that he thought that my linking to his work on the site really helped him get the exposure that led to his new job. Those are the best moments for me in this business.

4) Sports Radio in Boston is faked as much as pro wrestling.

Sure, we knew for years that The Big Show and other WEEI programming was done with an entertainment slant. They admitted as much. But since the Patriots first Super Bowl win, they’ve taken things to a whole new level. The reason? Glenn Ordway, Jason Wolfe and Julie Kahn believe that sports radio thrives on conflict and negativity, they believe that without something for people to complain and whine about, that the programming will be stale and boring. They’ve made references to pure sports talk as simply “reading box scores”. After the Patriots first Championship, there was less negativity around. They needed to create the conflict, and so “roles” were handed out. The daily “script” was tightened and each day a new drama appeared. Sometimes it could come out of a positive incident, one of the few things Edgar Renteria did right in his lone season in Boston was bunt for a basehit to get on base in front of David Ortiz, who then hit a game winning home run. Somehow this move by Renteria was turned into a negative and talked about for about three weeks on the station. Hosts and co-hosts play their roles on a daily basis on the station, sometimes being a “hero”, other times being a “villain”. Ordway is a big fan of WWE’s Vince McMahon (so much that he was convinced that the XFL was going to be a rousing success) and his influence can be seen in how the station operates. Everything is done for drama, it’s all about the show.

5) Boston does have a lot of intelligent fans, but none of them call radio stations.

If you want to get a good feel for what the average Boston sports fan feels on a certain topic, then don’t listen to the radio. The average fan is not going to get fired up on a topic that they will sit on hold for 45 minutes to be able to scream and rant for a maximum of three minutes on the air. The people who make it onto WEEI for the most part are ones who have an extreme view that the average fan does not. Where do you go to find intelligent Boston fans? They’re probably among your friends. Your closest friends that have been through years of following the teams together. You can find some great, intelligent fans on certain messageboards. I happen to think the group at the BSMW board is top rate for the most part. They can discuss almost any aspect of sports at a higher level than anything you’re going to hear from a talk show caller.

6) I love the Red Sox, but the on-air coverage of this club absolutely sucks out there right now.

The newspaper coverage of the team is solid, (except for Dan Shaughnessy) I’m not talking about them. The on-air broadcasting is at times annoying, but is overall pretty good. But the radio and television talk shows about the club suck all the joy out of following this team. I cannot stand it. Every game must be scrutinized and analyzed as an individual entity, with no regard to the big picture or context. Every day it’s “This guy sucks” or “Francona’s an idiot, he should’ve done this…”, or “Will Johnny Damon get booed in his first time back to Fenway?” The need to create a daily soap opera around the team is just terrible. Some will try to justify it by saying “THAT’S WHAT WE DO HERE!!!” But I don’t buy it. Sure, fans like to second-guess decisions and players. But certainly not in the edgy, mean-spirited way that it is done on the air. Every year there is a whipping boy, a villain who can do nothing right and is castigated daily on the airwaves. Last year was Edgar Renteria. This year it is Wily Mo Pena. Some weeks it is Manny Ramirez. True Red Sox fans need to tune out and not allow these mouthbreathers to ruin just a great period in Boston sports. Forget the storylines…just play the games. I may need to take a month off during every Red Sox season, as I write this I am looking forward to getting away from the nastiness, vitriol and idiocy that is Red Sox talk on radio and television in Boston.

7) There is a future in this for me.

What that future is exactly, I’m not sure. I have something of an idea of what things would be like if BSMW was a full time venture for me, and that will be the topic of a column for next week.

Tomorrow: Best/Worst Sports Radio Show

Popularity: 2% [?]

I’ve given bits and pieces before, but I don’t think I ever gone into detail as to why Boston Sports Media Watch exists today.

I’ve always been a huge consumer of anything Boston sports. I would buy all the newspapers, listen to WEEI all day, watch the Sunday night sports shows, and read USENET postings on the internet. When I discovered Bill Simmons’ Boston Sports Guy site on Digital City Boston back in 1998, I was in heaven. I had my own opinions on guys like Dan Shaughnessy, Peter May, etc, but reading Simmons tear them apart, I realized that probably a lot of people felt the same way. He also updated the site every day late morning with links to stories from newspapers across New England, and also odd stories from around the country.

I spent a lot of time in the old USENET groups, especially in those on the Red Sox, Celtics and Patriots. There were a lot of knowledgeable, intelligent posters in those groups, but even more idiots and trolls.

Some of those posters would point out errors, agendas and hypocrisy in the various media reports and stories. I found that stuff very interesting. For a short time, there was even a small website out there that was meant to point out these errors and inconsistencies in Red Sox coverage. I can’t remember the name of it, or really anything about it. When I found it, I immediately liked it, and fired off a long email about some inconsistencies and agendas on the part of Peter May. The website emailed back that while the information was very good, they only wanted to focus on the Red Sox coverage. That planted a seed in my mind.

In time a couple of thing started to steer me in the direction of creating a site. I enjoyed my day job in the IT department of New Hampshire Public Television, but at the same time, I wanted something more. Helping people change their passwords and find files they deleted by accident gets old after a while. I couldn’t see myself doing tech support stuff for the next 40 years. I wanted something on the side to challenge me. But what could I do? I had no illusions about my abilities to write, even though I enjoyed writing. I actually considered signing on with the Connecticut School of Broadcasting…I even sent away for their brochures. Before they even came, I knew that wasn’t something I really wanted to do.

For years I had enjoyed the sports media columns of Howard Manley, Bill Griffith and Jim Baker. To me, they seemed to have the ideal jobs. They wrote about what they saw on TV, heard on the radio and read in the newspapers. They also talked to people in the industry and got information on upcoming events. That seemed like a pretty good gig. How in the world did they get it? How would someone else get a position like that? I started looking around the internet for other sports media columns, and found that most cities had a couple.

I knew it would be just about impossible to get a column like that, but I figured I’d try. I wrote a few sample columns, which now when I look back on them, they’re just horrible. But I showed these to Bill Griffith at the Globe, and asked for his input. He was incredibly helpful. He offered suggestions on writing style, and what types of things that the reader is going to be looking for. I then took my samples and tried shopping them around to a few small papers in the area. The Portsmouth Herald, and Fosters Daily Democrat were the two that I targeted. I actually heard back from the Portsmouth Herald, and the publisher was very polite, yet explained that he just didn’t have the column space to dedicate to such a venture. We went back and forth a little bit, and he offered a few suggestions and ideas to try out.

Basically, I had gotten nowhere. I felt a little foolish, but still wanted to do something different. I had thought of a webpage, but even though I was in a technical job, I knew nothing about how to create or maintain a site. Then, reading a trade magazine in the first months of 2002, I learned about this new rage that was sweeping the internet: blogs. It seemed everyone was creating a blog. It made it easy to get online and have your voice out there. I found Blogger, the free service that allows you to create your own blog, and I signed up. I wasn’t really planning on the blog being something that would attract readers, or really go anywhere. What I figured was that it could give me a place to practice writing, as well as to keep some notes on what things were happening in the Boston sports media so that I could refer back to them at a later time. I thought it might also give me a chance to build up a “body of work” so that if I had a chance to try a column at a local paper, I could show them what I had been doing.

The early days of BSMW show a lot of choppy, uneven posts. I had no idea how I should go about it. Fittingly, the very first post on the old site took a shot at Dan Shaughnessy. When I started doing the daily links early in the morning, the site really took off. The weeks and months went by, and I tried to watch and listen to as much as a could without impacting the rest of my life negatively. I posted updates on sports radio shows, on TV shows, I did recaps of the Sunday Night Sports shows, which always left me burned on Monday morning. In June of that year, I got my first break as Bill Griffith mentioned the site in the Sunday Globe. I didn’t see a huge spike in traffic just yet, but it was a start, people were finding the website, and encouraging me to continue. I added a “tag board” to the site which allowed people to post running conversations in the sidebar. This grew so popular that eventually the company that provided the service (I was paying for it, but it wasn’t much per month) eventually told me that my board was using too much of their processing ability and that I would need to move it. Around the same time, an incident on the board made me realize that I needed to be able to keep a tighter lid on the things that were being said there, so the board was removed. It was replaced with a message board, which then had to be replaced with another board a few months later.

It took me some time to find my “voice” and I don’t think I’m all the way there yet. (More in a future column) I’ve tried adding things here and there to the site, and it will probably always be a work-in-progress, but the heart and soul of the site seem to be the daily links, which have their clear roots in the old Bill Simmons Boston Sports Guy website. I still interject commentary where I feel appropriate and have added a Friday column with news and items picked up from the week as well as weekend television listings. In any event, I’m pretty proud of what I’ve been able to do over the last four years and what I’ve achieved from my original intent and goals. It’s actually been more than I could’ve hoped for.

Next week, I’m going to take a look at some of the things that I’ve learned since starting up BSMW.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Check out the Red Sox Daily Links page for coverage of the Sox against the Blue Jays this weekend.

At the prompting of BSMW member Jeff, I’ve been looking at the New York Times 10-K Filing for 2005. As the member pointed out, there are a few nuggets of interesting information buried within the massive document.

I don’t pretend to be an expert analyst when it comes to business or accounting, but here were some things that seemed to be interesting.

The first area is circulation. The Times saw theirs go up a bit in 2005, while the Globe’s declined. The filing notes:

The decreases in weekday and Sunday copies sold in 2005 compared with 2004 were primarily due to a directed effort to reduce the Globe’s “other paid” circulation (primarily third-party bulk sponsored copies but also hotel copies); the positive impact in 2004 of the Red Sox World Series victory; and continuing adverse effects of telemarketing legislation.

(Italics mine) So the success of the Red Sox is a significant enough factor to influence the overall circulation of the paper that they would mention it here. This also reminds us of WEEI’s recent ratings dip after the Red Sox and Patriots failed to successfully defend their championships. It would seem that again, it’s the success of the teams is just as important, if not more so, to circulation and ratings then is the personalities at the paper and station.

Another area is more complicated and involves the company’s 17% ownership stake in the club. On page 2 of the Index of the filing, when talking about the assets owned by the company:

Additionally, we own equity interests in a Canadian newsprint company and a supercalendered paper manufacturing partnership in Maine; the Discovery Times Channel (”DTC”), a digital cable television channel; New England Sports Ventures, LLC (”NESV”), which owns the Boston Red Sox baseball club (including Fenway Park and approximately 80% of New England Sports Network, the regional cable sports network that televises the Red Sox games); and Metro Boston LLC (”Metro Boston”), which publishes a free daily newspaper catering to young professionals in the Boston metropolitan area (interest acquired on March 10, 2005).

(To be clear, The New York Times Co. owns 17% of NESV. NESV is the parent company that owns the Red Sox and 80% of NESN.)

Here’s another statement from the 10-K:

We have ownership interests in one newsprint mill and one mill producing supercalendered paper, a high finish paper used in some magazines and preprinted inserts, which is a higher-value grade than newsprint (the “Forest Products Investments”), as well as in DTC, NESV and Metro Boston. These investments are accounted for under the equity method and reported in “Investments in Joint Ventures” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. For additional information on our investments, see Note 5 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The “equity interest” and “equity method” of the statements are what is of interest.

With permission from the reader, I’m going to use what he said on the topic:

“When a company owns less than 50% of another company, accounting rules require it to choose from one of two possible methods of accounting for that investment: the “Cost Method,” or the “Equity Method.” The general rule is that if you own between 20%-50%, you should use the Equity Method. If you own less than 20%, you should use the cost method.

I bring this up because the The New York Times Co. owns 17% of the Red Sox. Yet it accounts for its investment in the Red Sox under the Equity Method, which is a bit unusual. Under accounting rules, the Times would only account for this investment under the Equity Method if it has “the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financial policies” of the Red Sox.

In other words, the accounting rules presume that a 17% owner would not yield significant influence. Yet the Times has concluded that, despite this presumption in the rules, its influence with the Red Sox is so clearly “significant” that it has treated its investment as an exception to the accounting rules. The cartel is alive and well…

Here is an excerpt from the actual accounting rules for the truly masochistic:”

The Board concludes that the equity method of accounting for an investment in common stock should also be followed by an investor whose investment in voting stock gives it the ability to exercise significant influence over operating and financial policies of an investee even though the investor holds 50% or less of the voting stock. Ability to exercise that influence may be indicated in several ways, such as representation on the board of directors, participation in policy making processes, material intercompany transactions, interchange of managerial personnel, or technological dependency. Another important consideration is the extent of ownership by an investor in relation to the concentration of other shareholdings, but substantial or majority ownership of the voting stock of an investee by another investor does not necessarily preclude the ability to exercise significant influence by the investor. The Board recognizes that determining the ability of an investor to exercise such influence is not always clear and applying judgment is necessary to assess the status of each investment. In order to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity in application, the Board concludes that an investment (direct or indirect) of 20% or more of the voting stock of an investee should lead to a presumption that in the absence of evidence to the contrary an investor has the ability to exercise significant influence over an investee. Conversely, an investment of less than 20% of the voting stock of an investee should lead to a presumption that an investor does not have the ability to exercise significant influence unless such ability can be demonstrated.

Back the analysis of the reader:

“Significant influence and control are two different things. If Henry owns 52% he has control. But that doesn’t mean the NY Times or other investors don’t have significant influence.

A conspiracy theorist would point to the Times ability to give the Sox more coverage than the Yankees and Mets in a nationally published New York based paper, or the ability to direct negative coverage of the team if Henry put them on ignore, as the ability to exert significant influence (beyond that typically exerted by a 17% shareholder).

The important point is that the Times’ own view of the situation is that they exert more influence than the typical 17% investor in a typical investment does. This viewpoint has a material impact on its financial statements, and puts them at risk under the securities laws were it not a defensible position.”

Does this make Mark Jurkowitz a conspiracy theorist?

So does this have anything to do with the current Red Sox radio rights negotiations? Could The New York Times Co. be influencing the discussions one way or the other?

Well, again it would take conspiracy theorists to come up with this, but a plausible connection could be made here.

We know how the Times (Globe) feels about WEEI as evidenced by the long-standing feud between the entities. The New York Times Co. also owns a number of radio and television stations. This is how the Times describes their business strategy in this regard:

Our strategy is to build a lean, agile and disciplined organization that will invigorate growth across our existing businesses and platforms, create lines of products in key content areas across multiple mediums…

Now let’s look at an excerpt from today’s Herald article which told us that a deal between the Red Sox and Greater Media was close to fruition.

The price could hit $14 million per year. Sources say both Greater Media and Entercom, whose WEEI-AM (850) is the incumbent, have offered that much. But Entercom is said to be offering cash, while Greater Media would provide both cash and a substantial equity stake in WBOS.

This is an interesting twist. The Red Sox are apparently at least seriously considering turning down cash in order to obtain an equity stake in the radio station. A stake that would allow them to present content “across multiple mediums.” Sure, this is a business model the Sox may very well have pursued without the New York Times Co. being an investor. But you could also take the stance that the Times’ “significant influence” on the negotiations is pushing the Sox to WBOS.

Separate from this but also of interest is Jay Fitzgerald’s story in the Herald on Wednesday which had Morgan Stanley, which is a major shareholder in the New York Times Co. expressing displeasure with the company’s performance in recent years. This quote ends the article:

Ed Atorino, an analyst at Benchmark Co., said he thinks Morgan Stanley’s challenge won’t lead to changes. Atorino said the real problem with the Times is its Globe subsidiary, which has seen dramatic advertising and circulation declines in recent months.

Media Columns From Around the Country:

David Scott, BSMW - From the Shanty to America’s Most Beloved Ballpark.

Fluto Shinzawa, Boston Globe - Seeing is believing with ESPN’s latest call.

Jim Baker, Nashua Telegraph - “The Game” happy to play without ESPN’s name in Nashua.

Andrew Neff, Bangor Daily News - Presque Isle banker earns shot at poker payday.

Richard Sandomir, New York Times - NBC, OLN, N.H.L. Try to Melt the Ice.

Bob Raissman, New York Daily News - No voices of reason.

Neil Best, New York Newsday - NBA not exactly must-see TV.

Phil Mushnick, New York Post - Common Sense: Booze and sex, not race or class, fueled the Duke rape case.

Andrew Marchand, New York Post - Lucas will audible for SNY.

Michael McCarthy, USA Today - ESPN, NFL Network upping ante for draft.

Michael Hiestand, USA Today - Breen gets top NBA assignment.

Barry Jackson, Miami Herald - ESPN gives Heat-Bulls opener ‘full circle’ coverage.

Dave Darling, Orlando Sentinel - NBA, NHL begin 2nd seasons.

Roger Brown, Cleveland Plain Dealer - Browns-Steelers ‘thrills’ NFL Network.

Chris Zelkovich, Toronto Star - Broadcast partners make strange bedfellows.

Tom Hoffarth, Los Angeles Daily News - NBA needs L.A. cooperation.

Larry Stewart, Los Angeles Times - NFL Network Pursues Gumbel, Collinsworth.

Also Stewart - Unlike `Bonds’ Series, This Show Fit for King.

Jay Posner, San Diego Union Tribune - Fans likely losers in MWC package.

Other notes:

I’m not sure how many more times I can stand a caller to WEEI stating “They should send Wily Mo Pena to Pawtucket instead of Adam Stern” and then having the host inform them that Pena has no options left and therefore cannot be sent to Pawtucket. It puts a dent in the whole “most intelligent fans in the country” argument.

Times like this is when I need to calm down and remind myself that talk show callers are usually not at all representative of the general fandom.

Speaking of Wily Mo, it seems that he has replaced Edgar Renteria as the whipping boy of the sports radio world. The airwaves have been dominated with endless criticism of Pena and the deal that sent Bronson Arroyo to the Reds to acquire him. I don’t quite get it. Why the love for Bronson Arroyo?

Have a great weekend…

Popularity: 2% [?]

Fire Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully
By Kerry J. Byrne, publisher, ColdHardFootballFacts.com and Bruce Allen, publisher, BostonSportsMedia.com.

They’re already chiseling a Ron Borges bust and reserving a special place of dishonor for it in the Hack Hall of Fame.

BostonSportsMedia.com and ColdHardFootballFacts.com have teamed up today to waive the five-year waiting period and expedite his induction - and we’re asking for your help. All you have to do is e-mail Boston Globe management and other concerned parties and demand that Borges be fired. You can even use our pre-written “Fire Ron Borges” e-mail.

His crime? Serial hackery below and beyond the call of duty.

E-mail addresses are found below. We even have a pre-made e-mail text for you to copy and paste.

Why Ron Borges should be fired
Boston Globe football writer Ron Borges, the Broadsheet Bully, believes fans dislike him because he expresses unpopular positions and because he challenges the New England Patriots organization and its management at a time when the franchise is hugely successful and popular.

This is simply not true.

Football fans dislike Borges because he’s wrong about virtually everything, he lacks basic journalistic standards and he uses his forum with the Boston Globe to bully his subjects, especially those whom he personally dislikes, while currying the favor of his inside sources. In fact, there are many reasons why Borges is perhaps the most unpopular sports reporter in America. There are many reasons, in other words, why Borges should be fired.

Borges lacks objectivity
Football fans have long wondered why Borges seems to hammer New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick so hard and so often. After all, the coach has set numerous NFL records, is the only coach in NFL history to win three Super Bowls in four years, has rewritten the book on NFL team management in the salary cap era and is considered by virtually every football expert to be the best coach in the game.

But not in the eyes of Borges, who continues to insist that Tony Dungy of Indianapolis, who has never won an NFL championship, is somehow a better coach.

Well, we discovered why Borges continues to hammer Belichick: He personally dislikes the coach. Football fans have long suspected that this was the case. But it was proven on Friday, Jan. 6, when Borges appeared on ESPN Radio Boston with host Michael Felger. Borges said he?s not going to invite Belichick over to his house any time soon, and otherwise admitted his personal distaste for the coach for the first time in a public forum.

Borges makes things up
Why does Borges dislike Belichick? Well, nobody knows but Borges and God apparently.

During that same Jan. 6 radio appearance, Borges implied that he has some dirt on Belichick that nobody else knows about:

“This fellow (Belichick) has cornered the market on convincing people with the help of his friends that no one has ever worked harder than he does and he’s out, uh, you know, when everyone else is sleeping, he’s working, when everyone else is eating, he’s working, uh, I could say something, but I won’t … about uh, how at least some of his time is being spent… “

Does Belichick kick dogs, don a white sheet and burn crosses or plot acts of bio-terrorism? Who knows? Borges did not say. All we know is that Belichick commits acts so dastardly and atrocious that it has forced the Broadsheet Bully to devote his life to exposing the coach as a fraud.

At least one caller to the program, “Bob from Marlboro,” questioned Borges about his accusation.

Caller: “Two minutes ago, Ron, you kind of hinted about something else Belichick does, whether or not it be coaching. That’s a major scoop on your end. What is it? Answer. I’d like to hear that. Outside of the football world, what is Bill Belichick doing that you don”t like?”
Felger: “I’m not going to allow this line of questioning.”
Borges: “I don’t think you should.”
Felger: “I don’t want Ron getting in trouble.”
Borges: “You don?’t have to worry about me.”

Borges did not come forth with his information. He simply tossed it out there like a big pile of mud to splatter all over the coach’s reputation, and then refused to explain himself. This means there are two possibilities:

1) Borges was referring to something intensely personal that doesn’t warrant discussion in a public forum and he realized it was inappropriate only after hinting at it. If this is the case, Borges should be raked over the coals for attempting to insert into the public discourse something that does not belong there.

2) Borges is simply making something up. What reporter has some personal dirt on a major public figure, admits he has this dirt, yet fails to tell people about it? Do you think the editors at the Globe are happy to hear this? Aren’t they paying Borges to report information that only he is able to uncover?

Why would he take an accusatory stance with the coach and then, when pressed about it, say that people should not be allowed to ask him questions on the topic - It stinks of the double standard the media has for itself that drives people crazy. Hey, there’s a reason why the media is the most distrusted institution in America. They spend all their time grilling public figures, seeking out dirt that, in many cases, ruins careers and even lives. But when someone dares to question a reporter about an entirely inappropriate statement the reporter has just made in a public forum, they shouldn’t be allowed to ask. It’s pharisaic.

If Borges knows something about Belichick he should share it, if only because it might resuscitate his own comatose reputation. Borges is wildly unpopular. Belichick is wildly popular. Borges apparently has information that would turn the tables, yet he continues to keep it a secret. Come on folks, are we supposed to believe that Borges is taking a bullet for Belichick, a person he openly despises?

Of course we’re not supposed to believe this. The only rational conclusion one can draw is that Borges made something up to fill time on the radio. So, Borges now has two options:

1) He could share his information and prove the doubting public wrong, or
2) He could apologize for his public fabrication and keep his mouth shut in the future.

Borges is a bully
Borges is also a boxing writer who seems to fancy himself a tough guy - at least if his behavior as a reporter is any indication - and wants everyone to know he’s a tough guy.

Former New England coach Pete Carroll often got the bully treatment from Borges, such as the time former linebacker Ted Johnson missed a tackle in a game that New England lost.

Borges berated the coach in the postgame press conference, demanding that Carroll mete out some punishment after - gasp! - a player missed a tackle.

The Broadsheet Bully attempted to flex his muscles most recently on Friday, Jan. 6 during that appearance on ESPN Radio Boston. Once again, Belichick was the target of his schoolyard antics:

‘Bottom line is, you know, I bet he (Belichick) had a lot of his lunch money taken from him in sixth grade. And you know what? And you know what? I’d have had all his quarters.”

Yeah, that is about the most juvenile thing we’ve ever heard. He says that back in school he would have beaten up the coach and taken all his money. That’s called a Bully Complex.

But, hey, it’s nothing like beating up a fat, old man who walks with a cane, which is exactly what eyewitnesses say Borges tried to do back in 2004 when he was covering a Bob Arum press conference before a fight card that featured Oscar de la Hoya and Bernard Hopkins. Borges apparently got into a physical altercation with a boxing writer named Michael Katz, who wears a neck brace, walks with a cane, and was described as an overweight man in his 60s.

Here’s how New York Daily news reporter Bob Raissman described the scene, which began with a verbal exchange between Katz and Borges:

Katz: “Yeah this sounds like a Don King toady, a Don King writer, attacking a guy (Hopkins) Don King hates.”
Borges: “You need a punch in the face, I’m really sick and tired of your …”
Katz: “Shut the (expletive deleted) up.”
“This is when the words turned into actions. Borges reached around and landed a hard open-handed blow on Katz’s right cheek. Katz never saw it coming. The shot sent Katz reeling back, separating his head from his beret, which went flying through the air.
Katz: “You shmuck. How can you hit a cripple?”
Borges: “You been getting away with that (hiding behind an infirmity) for years.”"

Hey, Borges: Belichick may kick dogs. But at least he doesn’t smack aging cripples.

The irony, of course, is that Borges thinks Belichick is the Gridiron Anti-Christ. Yet in the boxing world, he’s considered a Don King “toady.”

Oh, yeah, and Borges’ other big sports management hero, besides Don King? Yes, it’s Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders.

Borges is wrong about virtually everything
Every writer, particularly a sports writer, is going to be wrong from time to time. We all understand that. But Borges is habitually wrong, comically wrong and, even worse, is not man enough to admit the errors of his ways when he’s egregiously wrong. And it seems he?s often purposely wrong, spitefully attempting to drive home his anti-Belichick agenda, such as the time he predicted a 73-0 win by St. Louis over New England in Super Bowl XXXVI.

New England won, 20-17.

There are far too many examples of Borges being wrong to list all of them here. But we?ll provide a few. And remember, it’s not that Borges is wrong. It’s that he’s wrong simply in an effort to spite Belichick and the New England organization.

For example, following the 2001 draft, Borges ripped New England for drafting defensive lineman Richard Seymour and offensive lineman Matt Light. He even taunted Belichick with a mock “genius” reference - and this was before Belichick had won a single Super Bowl as a head coach.

Quoth the hack on MSNBC.com:

“On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”

Seymour is a four-time Pro Bowler who was just named an Associated Press first-team All Pro for the fourth time in his five-year career. And…this must come as a surprise to a keen talent evaluator such as Borges… Seymour has proven one of the most versatile defensive linemen in football: he’s adept at playing defensive tackle AND defensive end. Light, meanwhile, started more than 60 straight games before being injured this season and was a stalwart at left tackle, the most important position on the offensive line. Both Seymour and Light have been key contributors during New England’s three Super Bowls teams.

Terrell and Ferguson, however, have been outright busts. Robinson has been a bona fide underachiever. Among the four players Borges would have chosen instead of Seymour and Light, only Walker has had a strong career.

Despite the preponderance of evidence that indicates that Borges was wrong about the 2001 draft, he still can’t bring himself to admit it. During the Jan. 6 appearance on ESPN Radio Boston, the appearance that should ultimately torpedo his career, Borges insisted that he was “right at the time.”

So, Borges was completely wrong in his ability to evaluate the NFL success of virtually every player he mentioned back in 2001. But, in his own mind, he was “right at the time.” Hey, we thought the Titanic was going to make it all the way across the Atlantic. Sure, it sunk on its maiden voyage. But we were “right at the time.”

Of course, failing to understand the draft is a Borges specialty. Last year, during the 2005 draft, he proved to be among the worst ?experts? in the nation when it came to predicting draft picks.

Another Borges specialty is misunderstanding the salary cap. He routinely rips New England for not paying its players enough, as if the organization has an unlimited pile of cash to toss at players.

What Borges fails to understand is that the salary cap creates a finite pie to be shared among all players on a team. For every dollar given to one player, it’s essentially taken out of the pocket of another player. His inability to comprehend the salary cap was on display last April, when he wrote about the contract of New England fullback Patrick Pass.

Interestingly enough, Borges ripped the player?s agent, yet never contacted the agent to get her side of the story.

Borges also seems to equate paying too much for a player with good management. When New England refuses to pay as much for a player as another team is willing to do, he takes it as a sign that New England is cheap. There is, of course, another possibility: The other team is overpaying for the player. But Borges’ default position is always the former: New England is cheap.

During his Jan. 6 appearance on ESPN Radio Boston, Borges said New England management is limited in what it can do in the offseason because it’s too close to the salary cap. He didn’t realize that this argument contradicts his default argument that New England doesn’t pay its players enough.

In an era when New England has won three Super Bowls in four years and is two games away from playing for an unprecedented third straight Super Bowl championship, you would think New England management would get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to personnel decisions. After all, its method is clearly working. New England currently stands on the cusp of NFL history.

But it’s all a mystery in the eyes of Borges. In his estimation, New England drafts poorly, doesn’t pay its players enough and has an overrated coach and quarterback.

Why is Borges wrong so often? Well, maybe you could blame the sports interns at the Globe. After all, Borges has said they are sometimes given the job of making his expert picks before each NFL game. It explains why Borges has frequently been caught picking one team to win in one medium and another team to win on the pages of the Globe.

That’s what happened last year during a TV appearance when Borges picked Indy to beat New England in the playoffs, but then in the paper picked New England to beat Indy. New England won.

Chalk one up for the interns.

Borges is not just a factless hack, he’s a tactless hack
Borges took the occasion of the death of Belichick’s father, Steve, to debunk the notion of Bill Belichick the “genius.”

Hey, Ron: We all know the term “genius” is overused when it applies to NFL coaches. And nobody really believes Belichick is an Einstein-ian mental giant. The term “genius” is, dare we say, a “relative” term when it’s applied to football coaches. We all know that. But did you really have to take the occasion of Steve Belichick’s death to state your case once again?

Borges routinely insults his readers
What do you say about a reporter who routinely insults his very own readers, the people to whom he owes his livelihood? We’d say he deserves to be fired.

In particular, the Broadsheet Bully is fond of insulting those fans (and other reporters) who admire the play of Tom Brady.

Ever hear of Brady? He’s the quarterback of the New England Patriots, someone who has had the most successful first six years in the league of any quarterback in modern NFL history. He has set numerous passing records, won three Super Bowls, earned two Super Bowl MVP awards and has become a darling of American pop culture. His ascension to the level of sports and pop culture icon was cemented last month when Sports Illustrated named Brady 2005 Sportsman of the Year. In the eyes of most people, that?s not half bad.

But Borges is unimpressed. On Oct. 7, 2004, Borges appeared on a show called Sports Plus on New England Sports Network. He said anyone who would choose Brady over Colts quarterback Peyton Manning is “an idiot.”

Brady has proven to be the best big-game quarterback of our time. Manning has struggled in the playoffs every year he’s been there. But if you’d pick Brady over Manning, Borges thinks you’re an “idiot.” In other words, virtually every Boston Globe reader …along with millions of fans, coaches, scouts and football observers all over the country…is an “idiot.”

But New England fans aren’t just “idiots.” They’re “drunk” idiots, said Borges on April 20, 2005, when he appeared with host Eddie Andelman on radio station 1510 AM in Boston.

Andelman: “Well, there would be a revolution if they (New England) didn’t (sign Tom Brady).”
Borges: “Well, I don’t believe there would be. I used to think that there would be because I use to think that the fans were smart around here, but they’re drunk.”

So, let’s get this straight: Borges admired the intelligence of Patriots fans back when they supported the team through its lean years and rooted for players like Drew Bledsoe, who many believe was Borges’ inside source during the quarterback’s years in New England.

But once Bledsoe was traded and Brady ascended to become one of the premier sports icons in the nation, those same football fans suddenly became “idiots” and “drunks.”

Borges thinks his job is too hard
Interestingly, it was the 2002 trade of Bledsoe, whom Borges continues to defend to this day, that sparked an increase in the reporter’s attacks against the organization. Sports insiders say the loss of Borges’ most coveted source (and even his friend) sparked his anger at the organization.

There’s a reason, then, why Borges is often first in line to complain about the organization?s unwillingness to share information with the media. Other reporters still seem capable of digging up great stories about the team, including Felger and the Boston Globe’s Mike Reiss, among others. But Borges just lashes out at the team, asserting that the team does everything it can to make his job as difficult as possible.

New England is, of course, notoriously tight-lipped with the media. But we didn’t know making Ron’s life easy was part of the mission of the New England Patriots. We thought it was Borges’ mission to ferret out good stories and the organization’s mission to win Super Bowls and sell tickets. Well, only one party here is succeeding.

Borges knows nothing about athletes
The Broadsheet Bully’s adversarial ignorance goes beyond the world of football. In fact, he knows nothing about cycling, either, and is quite vocal about it.

Consider the case of Lance Armstrong. He has won seven straight Tours de France, an event considered by many to be the most demanding and punishing athletic challenge ever created. Because of Armstrong’s dominance of this event, most people consider him one of the great athletes of our time. Some might even argue he’s the greatest ever.

But not Borges. “Don’t try to convince me he’s the world’s greatest athlete,” Borges wrote on MSNBC.com back in 2002. “First try to convince me he’s an athlete at all.”

There you have it: Armstrong, the guy who cycles up mountain ranges and across entire nations faster than any man on earth, is not an athlete.

There are two conclusions one can draw from this statement: Borges is incompetent and ignorant. Or he writes things not to educate and enlighten people, but simply to get a cheap rise out of them.

In either case, it’s an embarrassing indictment of the Broadsheet Bully’s method of sports reporting and should not be allowed in publications that take journalism seriously.

Borges is culturally insensitive
Boston Globe reporters, along with its discredited hacks like