wettlaufer

Thanks for not doing the work. You have no idea how journalists operate or what constitutes good work in that field. You probably didn't read the entire piece either. Yeah, he did provide numerous alternate points of view. Again, it's first-hand people (25) telling the story, not Dunne. He's a conduit, but the testimony belongs to others, all of whom have worked with or for McD. The guy isn't kicking Bills Mafia when it's down. It takes a long time to put together this sort of piece. It's entirely coincidental it came out a week after another McD late-game fail. It was "certainly" released to inflict damage? Gosh, that seems like the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate convincingly. Please, regale us. Do write reports? Try cases? Write for publication with 25 sources? I am guessing no.

Oh, hey, guy who didn't read the piece, who thinks his zero hours working in journalism and thinks that qualifies him to comment on the quality of reporting. Can I come down to your workplace and comment on how biased and poor you are at your job, without really knowing what performance means in your job? Because yOu ArE BIAsEd anD haVe An aXe tO GRiNd?

Dunne addressed the credentials thing. He says it's the Bills' prerogative and he understands. Can I give you an assignment? Can you go out and talk with 25 people who have worked directly with Ty Dunne and report back? Because then you'd be on par with the work he did her. You are correct -- you are speculating from an emotional, uninformed perspective.

No, he interviewed 25 people. As the article, which you likely didn't read, states. Another indication you didn't read it -- not all the comments were critical. Every NFL organization has turnover. Few, if any, have leaders who screw up so badly that so many former associates would come out and day what they did, even off the record. Dunne didn't make it a hit job. McD's leadership style and continual fails late in games have (we JUST had a couple with "12 men" and failing to close the Eagles). Yeah, I hope we go on a run and win the SB too. I can separate my hopes as a fan from a fair, objective analysis of a journalist's work. McD's whining this was a hit piece on his character is yet another evasion of hard truths that must be looked at by one's self but are not. That's NOT leadership when said leader demands that of his people all the time. You gotta walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Which is one reason it appears Digggs really doesn't dig Sean McDermott.

Well, maybe study demographics, New York State parliamentary procedure, political science, and psychology. There would be a howling mob from Utica on east that would absolutely be against the funding. Look, I don't think the anecdote is as important as people have made it. It was horrifically stupid and people, especially from the NYC metro area, are pissed. However, there a dozen key points in the article, made in total by 25 people with firsthand knowledge of the situation, that were just as important to what matters here: McD is not a gameday coach. He freezes. He's rigid personally, and he's not a natural leader. I was never hung up on the comment. It was stupid. McD has to address the team all the time -- people make mistakes. But don't fool yourself -- King made a good point. It would be much tougher to get funding today in a legislative process that depends on the goodwill of New York State votes representing the eastern half of the state / NYC. Stupid mistakes at important points can have big consequences. Whether that's squibbing it at 13 seconds or making dumb remarks. But whatever -- the piece details very amply that McD is not an effective leader of football players. Not at the Lombardi level.

No it's not. If the appropriation were being debated on the floor in Albany today, it would absolutely go down in flames.

That's likely true of 95% of the people who are having this teenager reaction to the story, including McDermott, who once again evaded responsibility for everything in the piece except for the dumb 9/11 story. That was the LEAST damning of everything in the story, but has attracted the most commentary. It was one of many weird anecdotes in the story and not really that important vs the other more important points, namely that McD freezes in big games and is a very shaky leader at many points. 13 seconds is the prime example. Is anyone screeching about that anecdote?

There were numerous comments made on the record. Why is it hard to believe? Are you familiar with his body of work? I also work in an industry in which I can't come out publicly and smack talk former bosses. It would hurt me in the end. The NFL is a small community and people know if they put their name to negative comments about a former boss, they reduce their future employment and income potential. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Chad Hall isn't gonna put his name to the weirdest anecdote in that story (about WRs buying him a truck). And he didn't. His comment was "no comment." So whos' beefing on the Chad Hall story? You don't know, number one. Number two, it's not a beef. It's an accurate recounting of McD being a weirdo. He didn't clearly do anything but report on what 25 separate people, who had firsthand experience working with McD, had to say about the guy. Sorry you don't like it, but that's no reason to accuse others of not doing their job and being unethical.

They do not, however. I think Dunne's article illuminates why that may be the case. Few things can be boiled down to one variable, but we can all see McD freezing up and blowing a lot of games. I think our fan base is really wrapped up in the details of this 20,000 word piece and dodging the bottom line: McD is a very shaky leader and shrinks in the big moments. Dunne didn't say that. The majority of his 25 sources did.

It was on a laundry list of weird behavior by McD, not a headline item. Yeah, he used it. It's weird. But it was a very minor part of the story. His intent has been very clear in his work as a journalist: to be thorough, ethical, diligent in pursuit of his duties, and entertaining. He did that here.

There are TONS of people with media platforms that don't do their work and just rely on stats and highlights. Dunne is not one of them. Guy gets 25 interview subjects, not all of whom are universally negative and which Dunne does not conceal, which constitutes the very soul of good journalism and hard work. He has bills to pay, sure. Just like you and me. People burning him down having zero framework for what represents good journalism, and based on one tiny detail in 20,000 words (the 9/11 dumbassery) should just calm down and read and think. The Chad Hall thing was the worst piece of it. It's insane. But the late game failures, which all reflect upon McD's being tight and unable to act as a member of a coaching team, are all on Sean. Dunne didn't claim these things -- 25 colleagues of McD said this in a journalistically integral, hard-working piece. Do people understand this is a lunch pail profession? These people don't get paid much and it's sometimes very noticeable. In the case of Dunne, it's obvious he is well-sourced and credible.

It was ONE example of a dozen instances of poor communication and behavior cited by Dunne. Did he title the piece "Sean McDermott Celebrates 9/11 Terrorists' Execution and Communication?" No, because it was a minor thing in the piece and people are WAY too focused on it versus other weird stuff in there, like bagging on Chad Hall for being loved by players.

Have you ever been quoted in the media? Ever been mis-quoted? Do you write for publication? Oh, no? OK, you seem like a really credible person to comment on how people in the public eye interact with the media. There is nothing inherently wrong with quoting anonymous sources and you ascribe without any basis malintent / ethical dereliction on the part of Dunne.

There were a number of complimentary comments from former players. I'm sure you didn't read the whole thing. It's objectively good journalism. It's thorough, it reflects the thinking of a wide swath (25) of people with firsthand testimony to offer about McD. Yeah, people comment off the record because it would hurt them to say these things on the record. If McD didn't say or do any of these things, there would be nothing to dig up. Let's stop harping on McD's dumb comment about 9/11, which was not twisted in its reporting. There were many indictments on what he can't close games and why people aren't performing up to their potential in this organization and it all leads back to McD.

Coach McDermott in film session with DBs: McD: "Now, Siran, you began to turn your hips here and man, did you really whiff on the tackle because of that." Siran: "YOU'RE ATTACKING MY CHARACTER AND MY FAMILY!"

Dunne didn't call him that. An interview subject did. Is every comment fair? Probably not. But let's look at the entire body of the work rather than latching onto the dumb 9/11 comment and one person going over the edge and playing armchair psychiatrist. It's a pretty damning work that reflects commentary from 25 football professionals. It's not a hit piece or an attack on McD's character. That is whiny nonsense from McD...again.

No. Did you read it? Dunne wasn't attacking anyone. He was reporting what 25 former associates of McDermott had to say about him. Both massive homers.

"This is an attack on my character" is purely evasive and non-accountable. He did the opposite of of a "hell of a job."

I was at a cocktail party ten years ago and relayed that anecdote. I don't think the woman was a Bills fan or a student of WWII. It didn't go over too well.

You could have made this a lot shorter by simply saying "I don't know how journalism works." He also doesn't have a grievance with the Bills' media policies. He has just stated them as facts. Do you know how long it takes to interview that many people, write, and edit the piece? He didn't time it for release with any particular circumstances in mind. Dunne's business model depends on good journalism, not BS empty rumors. I'm sure you didn't read the article, but it had observations (good and bad) from 25 different firsthand people, not all of whom are McDermott detractors. Your complaint is total speculation and addresses zero in a well-produce piece of work by a real journalist and not most of the homers who simp for the Bills in return for their press credentials.

Welp, there are good journalists and bad. There are good and bad soldiers. I worked in journalism long ago in Buffalo and I can tell you Dunne is 100% above-board and not in it for the clicks. He's one of the best in the business at human interest stories and he went far above and beyond to turn out a fantastic piece. The guy you dealt with in KSA obviously sucked at his job.

Do you know why it's called a "walk-through?" Let's take a guess.

This wasn't an opinion piece. You have no valid reason to say Dunne has an axe to grind and no, the opinions he found were not all negative. Try reading the thing first.

Reporter interviews 25 people. That's a lot. But yeah, he's biased because of something you believe happened but can't support in any way. That sounds like an awfully substantial analysis next to the guy who chased down 25 interview subjects and who were not homogenously anti-McDermott.

McDummy has scapegoated everyone this seasons -- the offense, Allen, Davis. Sure. those guys make mistakes, but the end-of-game fails are almost exclusively defensive. The Bills offense has walked off the field with the lead in-hand numerous times, only to have that lead cave in under the weight of bad defensive- and head coaching. McDummy threw the offense under the bus after the Philly loss and of course there's the non-explanation for 13 seconds.