Good piece on Buffalo News Sports Dept

[US Egg]

1 hour ago, BUFFALOBART said:

Well. You should apply for his job. It would be so easy. Right???????????

 

No. I like the Pegulas and see the good they're doing for the area and would never mock them.

 

The previous job holders were snarks personified and mainly trolled to trash them .

[Fadingpain]

12 hours ago, ALF said:

I hope the BN hires Sal to cover the Bills. Hate to see so many jobs gone. 

Sal is an idiot, nowhere near the league of the guys the paper just lost.

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

I disagree with you’re comment.  I love Sal and knows what he is talking about as well as Vic.

 

im glad they didn’t can Vic.

[Thurman#1]

23 hours ago, eball said:

“[My meeting] only took about 12 minutes,” Sullivan told Buffalo Rumblings. “It was pretty upsetting, and I started to leave. Mike Connelly led into the big news with a three-pronged discussion about what we needed in the sports department to be better. The message at the end was that my voice had become tired, and he didn’t use the words ‘bad for business,’ but that was clearly the message.”

 

“At one point, [Connelly] told me that even I seemed tired with my column, and I jumped on him for that,” Sullivan added. “Don’t ever put words in my mouth.”

 

 

Umm, yeah, I'd say we weren't the only ones sick of Sully's b.s. 

 

 

 

 

"Gleason and Sullivan ranked among the best-read writers for the paper’s website each week, based on metrics that DiCesare could access."

 

... and ...

 

“'Times are tough for newspapers, but they kept that band together for a long time,' said an anonymous Buffalo News contributor, who also noted that morale at the outlet has taken a hit. 'Pound for pound, that was one of the best staffs in the country. But you’ve got to remember, many of the departures in the sports department weren’t forced. The News did not want to lose Bucky, Sully, Vogl and Tim. But they looked at how things were going, and decided it was an easy time to jump ship.'”

 

 

 

Maybe some were sick of it, but obviously plenty weren't. 

 

Sounds like a lot of this comes down to the difference between the Buffalo News and the BN Blitz. Sully's comment on suddenly writing for the BN Blitz was really on-point.

 

 “We’re running a Bills site now,” said Sullivan. “It’s not a newspaper we’re talking about. It’s an online product specifically geared toward the Bills, which by its very nature becomes a more of a fan site.”

 

That's perceptive and highlights a major issue I hadn't really thought of in the context of the BN Blitz. Buffalo Bills fans don't necessarily want balanced coverage. They tend to want much more positively-slanted coverage. They're team fans. Whereas newspaper readers and sports fans in general would expect balanced coverage, as it's what's been given and valued historically. 

 

BN Blitz readers paid money each month for basically nothing but Bills content. They self-selected as people who wanted more positivity about their Bills. Balance isn't what they were looking for.

 

It's an interesting article. Good to know what went on.

 

Seems like the News didn't handle this well, but in fairness, this industry is sailing into uncharted waters. You can't expect everything to go as smoothly as you'd hope. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

If he wants a guaranteed gig, he'll have to buy his own newspaper.  

I never read anything other than their Bills stuff.   And even Sullivan's Bills stuff was well written.   The guy can write.   His writing revealed some deep-seated anger he had about the Bills.   He took swings at the Bills every chance he got.   He was bitter.   He couldn't find any joy in his experience of the Bills, and if there's no joy, what's the point?

 

 

 

He quit, decided himself to take the buyout. You're way overreacting with the wanting a guaranteed gig stuff. 

 

And that anger you saw, I would strongly argue, was as much your own perception as what Sully wrote. Sully was a grump and a crank, but he'd be the first to notice when they played well - which they tended to do for only short periods of time. I say this as someone with respect for you and your writing, but you are a die-hard Bills fan and IMO don't tend to react well when people are negative about the Bills, even when the team deserves it. That's the way it has looked to me, but feel free to disagree with me there. Am I wrong?

 

Sully found plenty of joy in the Bills here and there, mostly when they played well. Which simply hasn't been often or consistently in a very very long time. As I've pointed out before, during the year Trent had that terrific start, when the Bills were 5-2, Sully wrote a column about how if things continued this way, Gailey would be a front-runner for Coach of the Year. When the Bills played well, Sully said so.

 

But they have been a mediocre team for years and years. A guy who is paid to write a column on a team playing like that should point it out. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Thurman#1

[plenzmd1]

14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I doubt the decision was based on the quarter.  Probably based on projections.  

I read the Rumblings article a few days ago..but this was my take on the qtr and what happened to the sports department.

 

Absent financial problems, I think Guild rules were very strict on what could and could not happen to these tenured guys. I have a feeling the News was looking for any way to get Sully/Bucky out of there, and the quarterly loss presented the chance for the News to make sweeping changes and it took it! Not like they have funding issues etc, they just played the rules the way rules be !

 

I am guessing there was a seniorty thing as to why Sully and Bucky were not offered buyouts originally..but seems pretty clear Josh wanted much less of both their voices to heard .

[Malazan]

Well, a lot of my interest in The Athletic died. I hope Timmah leaves his axe at Buffalo News

[Shaw66]

15 hours ago, PastaJoe said:

It’s a sad day in America when the people with the money can dictate how the media should report about them. The modern version of company towns from the 1800s.

I agree and disagree.  

 

Sure, it would be nice to have a totally free press, I suppose, but it's simply unrealistic to think that's every going to happen.   You have to expect that people with power are going to exercise that power.   If someone is saying bad things about me publicly and I have the power to stop it, am I going to decline to exercise that power because I want to promote the principle of a free press?   Not likely.   

 

It's a give and take situation.  The Pegulas stepped in not because they wanted everyone at the News to wear rose-colored glasses at Bills and Sabres games.   They stepped in because some of the News writers were openly antagonistic toward the Bills, writing outrageous stuff.   That is, the News had allowed its writers to go over the line to become more like the lunatic fringe than responsible journalists.   

 

When the Bills were in the process of moving away from Rex and Doug and installing McBeane as the new regime, in those four or five months, Sullivan and Gleason unjustifiably negative about the Bills, not only taking shots at what was happening but actively trying to create situations where they could bash the Bills.  I heard it myself, listening to the press conferences.    They already had called one of the Bills leadership, I believe it was Whaley, a "liar" in print, because they had some theory that something Whaley said was directly opposite something Anthony Lynn had said.  What Lynn had said was in that Wednesday press conference before the last game.  Lynn had been named interim head coach two days before, this was his first press conference, and Gleason and Sullivan literally ambushed him.   It was unmerciful and inappropriate.  Then, in later press conferences they repeatedly asked questions designed to generate responses that were inconsistent with things Bills' leadership had said or done in the preceding weeks or months.   It was like they thought they were Woodward and Bernstein taking down the President.    They behaved like they were investigative journalists on a mission.   

 

If I'm the Pegulas, I'm going to move to stop it.   I'm going to begin restricting the News' access to coaches and the front office, which I believe they did.   I'm going to begin giving exclusives to other outlets instead of the News, which I believe they did.   Why would they give the News preferred access, just because they were the home town paper, if everything they did was going to be prejudged and attacked by the paper?   

 

So, yes, people with money are going use it to control how they're covered.   It isn't the problem you suggest, however, because it's one thing to use power to try to control unfair coverage, it's another to try to use power to cover up the truth.   The President of the United States doesn't have the power to hide the truth, and the Pegulas don't either.  There's enough press, and there are enough people writing who can't be influenced by power (the explosion of bloggers is a great development in that regard), that the truth simply can't be hidden forever.   

 

The simple fact is that the power of the press, like everyone else's power is limited.   Wealth's power is limited by the press's ability to expose wrong-doing, and the press's power is limited by the wealth that makes the press powerful in the first place.   Checks and balances.  The News had gone over the line, was exercising the power of the press in a way that was unfair and inappropriate, and the Pegulas helped the leadership at the News understand that.   That's not a bad thing.   

[corta765]

On 6/24/2018 at 9:18 AM, matter2003 said:

How poorly managed is a company that has their first quartely loss in 40 years and is so panicked by it because they havent done a good job with their finances?? What have they been doing with their quarterly profits for the last 40 years?

 

They were making $1 million a week at one point? Where did the money go?

 

Thats 160 quarters straight where they made money and they literally have so little of that saved they freak out and have to get rid of a bunch of people?

 

Thats terrible management.

 

If you read the piece while buyouts were an option all of them chose to leave. They were not forced out and in Sully/Gleason case neither like the direction things were going. That's a big difference.

 

That said the BN Blitz is every much the disaster it seems and mgmt absolutely messed that up.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Great read. Thanks for posting

[corta765]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree and disagree.  

 

Sure, it would be nice to have a totally free press, I suppose, but it's simply unrealistic to think that's every going to happen.   You have to expect that people with power are going to exercise that power.   If someone is saying bad things about me publicly and I have the power to stop it, am I going to decline to exercise that power because I want to promote the principle of a free press?   Not likely.   

 

It's a give and take situation.  The Pegulas stepped in not because they wanted everyone at the News to wear rose-colored glasses at Bills and Sabres games.   They stepped in because some of the News writers were openly antagonistic toward the Bills, writing outrageous stuff.   That is, the News had allowed its writers to go over the line to become more like the lunatic fringe than responsible journalists.   

 

When the Bills were in the process of moving away from Rex and Doug and installing McBeane as the new regime, in those four or five months, Sullivan and Gleason unjustifiably negative about the Bills, not only taking shots at what was happening but actively trying to create situations where they could bash the Bills.  I heard it myself, listening to the press conferences.    They already had called one of the Bills leadership, I believe it was Whaley, a "liar" in print, because they had some theory that something Whaley said was directly opposite something Anthony Lynn had said.  What Lynn had said was in that Wednesday press conference before the last game.  Lynn had been named interim head coach two days before, this was his first press conference, and Gleason and Sullivan literally ambushed him.   It was unmerciful and inappropriate.  Then, in later press conferences they repeatedly asked questions designed to generate responses that were inconsistent with things Bills' leadership had said or done in the preceding weeks or months.   It was like they thought they were Woodward and Bernstein taking down the President.    They behaved like they were investigative journalists on a mission.   

 

If I'm the Pegulas, I'm going to move to stop it.   I'm going to begin restricting the News' access to coaches and the front office, which I believe they did.   I'm going to begin giving exclusives to other outlets instead of the News, which I believe they did.   Why would they give the News preferred access, just because they were the home town paper, if everything they did was going to be prejudged and attacked by the paper?   

 

So, yes, people with money are going use it to control how they're covered.   It isn't the problem you suggest, however, because it's one thing to use power to try to control unfair coverage, it's another to try to use power to cover up the truth.   The President of the United States doesn't have the power to hide the truth, and the Pegulas don't either.  There's enough press, and there are enough people writing who can't be influenced by power (the explosion of bloggers is a great development in that regard), that the truth simply can't be hidden forever.   

 

The simple fact is that the power of the press, like everyone else's power is limited.   Wealth's power is limited by the press's ability to expose wrong-doing, and the press's power is limited by the wealth that makes the press powerful in the first place.   Checks and balances.  The News had gone over the line, was exercising the power of the press in a way that was unfair and inappropriate, and the Pegulas helped the leadership at the News understand that.   That's not a bad thing.   

 

100%. I had no problem with criticizing the team and questioning the decision making. As a fan I tended to agree with a lot of what was said, I remember especially after the 2016 Steeler game everyone just saying can Rex and Whaley and restart the disaster straight up. I thought during that the media actually did a good job to illustrate how out of control the Bills FO was.

 

BUT yea they crossed far too many lines and even with new management they were ready to attack anything remotely wrong. There is fair and balanced reporting with criticism and then chasing the smallest fire the size of a cigarette.

 

Sullivan I think his voice had become dry over the years and he was to opinionated in his own ways, but had he adjusted a bit could've been fire. Bucky Gleason though was a straight up jerk and I was thrilled to see him go. The last time he wrote anything remotely fair to the Sabres was tens years plus.

 

And yea as a owner I would restrict access if we were constantly harnessed at every step for not taking the wisdom of two reporters from TBN.

[LABILLBACKER]

I'll be shocked if there are any newspapers still in business 10 years from now. Including the LA & NY Times. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

"Gleason and Sullivan ranked among the best-read writers for the paper’s website each week, based on metrics that DiCesare could access."

 

... and ...

 

“'Times are tough for newspapers, but they kept that band together for a long time,' said an anonymous Buffalo News contributor, who also noted that morale at the outlet has taken a hit. 'Pound for pound, that was one of the best staffs in the country. But you’ve got to remember, many of the departures in the sports department weren’t forced. The News did not want to lose Bucky, Sully, Vogl and Tim. But they looked at how things were going, and decided it was an easy time to jump ship.'”

 

 

 

Maybe some were sick of it, but obviously plenty weren't. 

 

Sounds like a lot of this comes down to the difference between the Buffalo News and the BN Blitz. Sully's comment on suddenly writing for the BN Blitz was really on-point.

 

 “We’re running a Bills site now,” said Sullivan. “It’s not a newspaper we’re talking about. It’s an online product specifically geared toward the Bills, which by its very nature becomes a more of a fan site.”

 

That's perceptive and highlights a major issue I hadn't really thought of in the context of the BN Blitz. Buffalo Bills fans don't necessarily want balanced coverage. They tend to want much more positively-slanted coverage. They're team fans. Whereas newspaper readers and sports fans in general would expect balanced coverage, as it's what's been given and valued historically. 

 

BN Blitz readers paid money each month for basically nothing but Bills content. They self-selected as people who wanted more positivity about their Bills. Balance isn't what they were looking for.

 

It's an interesting article. Good to know what went on.

 

Seems like the News didn't handle this well, but in fairness, this industry is sailing into uncharted waters. You can't expect everything to go as smoothly as you'd hope. 

 

 

 

 

Thurman's post should be the mic drop for this thread.

 

Sully was one of their best read.  That should have been clear to all the kerchief clutchers going on about Sully's style.

 

Pointing out the owner's bumbling ownership of the Sabres is truth writing.  How else should it be covered seek after week, season after season since the current ownership began?  And calling out liars, like Whaley, who was a really bad one, shouldn't earn the whiney scorn of the owner.

 

Pegula has Chris Brown to write what the boss tells him to write.  Everyone else should want the whole spectrum (of which Sully was just one part at BN) to read, agree or disagree with.  This isn't an advertiser pulling revenue.  This is a newsmaker (owner and his teams) trying to influence how the news they make is presented to the public.

 

Nice.  Kim Terry Un....

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

He quit, decided himself to take the buyout. You're way overreacting with the wanting a guaranteed gig stuff. 

 

And that anger you saw, I would strongly argue, was as much your own perception as what Sully wrote. Sully was a grump and a crank, but he'd be the first to notice when they played well - which they tended to do for only short periods of time. I say this as someone with respect for you and your writing, but you are a die-hard Bills fan and IMO don't tend to react well when people are negative about the Bills, even when the team deserves it. That's the way it has looked to me, but feel free to disagree with me there. Am I wrong?

 

Sully found plenty of joy in the Bills here and there, mostly when they played well. Which simply hasn't been often or consistently in a very very long time. As I've pointed out before, during the year Trent had that terrific start, when the Bills were 5-2, Sully wrote a column about how if things continued this way, Gailey would be a front-runner for Coach of the Year. When the Bills played well, Sully said so.

 

But they have been a mediocre team for years and years. A guy who is paid to write a column on a team playing like that should point it out. 

Thurm -

 

He was laid off in EXACTLY the same way senior writers have been laid off around the country for a couple of decades.   He was told that his job description was changing dramatically in ways that made his job MUCH less attractive to him than his current job, and he was also told that a retirement package was available.   He did the math, as hundreds of senior journalists have done around the country, and realized that the dollar value of the buyout offer plus what he could earn as a free-lance writer or working for another outlet was good enough to live on, so he took the buyout in order to continue to have a job that he liked.   It's been happening for years all around the country.   It's a simple matter of economics for the papers.   The loss of the writer doesn't affect circulation nearly as much as the paper benefits from the compensation reduction, so the paper gives the writer a "choice" that really is no choice at all.  

 

I would tend to agree with you that my view might be skewed if I hadn't heard Sully discussing Terrell Owens late in his single season in Buffalo.   Sullivan had been brutal to TO from the day he was signed, ripping him as a prima donna and "locker room cancer."   Sullivan did it all season long, and it bothered me a lot because what he said was completely inconsistent with everything I heard and saw about TO.   It was 100% made up.   Terrell Owens had a press conference every week, almost all season long, and I listened to every one.   He didn't have one objectionable press conference.   He never threw anyone under the bus, including Trent Edwards, who didn't seem to understand that he was on the field with a Hall of Fame receiver.   Sullivan and others would ask the other players to talk about TO in the locker room, and they uniformly said he was a great teammate - among the hardest workers on the team and a great guy to hang with.   Notwithstanding all of that, Sullivan was all over Owens.

 

Then, late in the season, I happened to hear him on WGR with, I think, Schoop and the Bulldog, and the discussion turned to TO.   Sullivan went off on TO like TO'd been arrested for raping 13 year-old girls.   The interviewers interrupted him and told him they thought his views were extreme and unsupported by the facts.   That just sent Sullivan into greater, almost absurd accusations about how horrible TO was.  I mean this without exaggeration - he sounded like someone who believed the Holocaust didn't happen.  The interviewers kept trying to get him on track, and it became very clear that they believed they were talking to someone who, at least on this subject, had lost all connection with reality.   

 

That episode confirmed for me that Sullivan wasn't a responsible journalist; he was a man on a his own personal mission, driven by motives I didn't understand.    He wasn't a well educated sports fan, watching sports and reacting to what he saw.   He was a guy who for some reason lived to bash the Bills, and went out of his way to find reasons he could bash them.   As I noted above, in recent press conferences it was completely clear that he would ask questions designed to create contradictions with what other representatives of the organization had said, so that then he could claim that the Bills were lying to the press.    

 

He simply was not a responsible journalist, at least not so far as the Bills were concerned.  

[dpberr]

That paywall was a fool's errand.  Plenty of case studies nationwide that would have told you that half measure wasn't going to get close to meeting those wildly optimistic expectations.   

 

 

 

 

[ToGoGo]

Good riddance. Props to BN management for doing the right thing. Now the healing process begins. Hire fresh, talented, hungry, young, and optimistic reporters and let's build something great. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

20 hours ago, The Red King said:

Problem with the media is...it's not about putting out the best quality, it's about getting the most reads/clicks.  That's why there are always one or two outragious placements in Power Rankings...just to get people fired up so they get ten-twenty pages of replies.  The media doesn't care if you like their content, they just care if you keep reading it.  Sully's column may have become a bit dry, one note...but people kept reading, and that was what mattered.  The fact that many read it just to rampage and critisize it is irrelevant...they read it, and that's what mattered.

 

Or, to quote Captain Sparrow, "But you have heard of me!"

Just my opinion, but that would seem to apply to the free to read w/ advertisements model. The paywall model changes the mindset. Now the customer needs to determine whether you put out enough material that they want to click to justify the fee. People didn't want to pay to click Sully's stuff. Paywall seems a lot like the gym membership model. Don't really care if you actually show up, just as long as we're providing you with enough to justify renewing your membership.

[Punching Bag]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

"Gleason and Sullivan ranked among the best-read writers for the paper’s website each week, based on metrics that DiCesare could access."

 

Then they should have NO ISSUE getting another job, right? Papers and media outlets should be lining up at their doors?  They probably same thing Marone expected and realized that they were not as hot as they thought.

 

I know brother's business used to advertise in sports section and he told Buffalo News ad seller he would no longer advertise because he was tired of hearing their childish banter.  Agent has not called him back yet but that agent may be gone.

[ToGoGo]

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thurm -

 

He was laid off in EXACTLY the same way senior writers have been laid off around the country for a couple of decades.   He was told that his job description was changing dramatically in ways that made his job MUCH less attractive to him than his current job, and he was also told that a retirement package was available.   He did the math, as hundreds of senior journalists have done around the country, and realized that the dollar value of the buyout offer plus what he could earn as a free-lance writer or working for another outlet was good enough to live on, so he took the buyout in order to continue to have a job that he liked.   It's been happening for years all around the country.   It's a simple matter of economics for the papers.   The loss of the writer doesn't affect circulation nearly as much as the paper benefits from the compensation reduction, so the paper gives the writer a "choice" that really is no choice at all.  

 

I would tend to agree with you that my view might be skewed if I hadn't heard Sully discussing Terrell Owens late in his single season in Buffalo.   Sullivan had been brutal to TO from the day he was signed, ripping him as a prima donna and "locker room cancer."   Sullivan did it all season long, and it bothered me a lot because what he said was completely inconsistent with everything I heard and saw about TO.   It was 100% made up.   Terrell Owens had a press conference every week, almost all season long, and I listened to every one.   He didn't have one objectionable press conference.   He never threw anyone under the bus, including Trent Edwards, who didn't seem to understand that he was on the field with a Hall of Fame receiver.   Sullivan and others would ask the other players to talk about TO in the locker room, and they uniformly said he was a great teammate - among the hardest workers on the team and a great guy to hang with.   Notwithstanding all of that, Sullivan was all over Owens.

 

Then, late in the season, I happened to hear him on WGR with, I think, Schoop and the Bulldog, and the discussion turned to TO.   Sullivan went off on TO like TO'd been arrested for raping 13 year-old girls.   The interviewers interrupted him and told him they thought his views were extreme and unsupported by the facts.   That just sent Sullivan into greater, almost absurd accusations about how horrible TO was.  I mean this without exaggeration - he sounded like someone who believed the Holocaust didn't happen.  The interviewers kept trying to get him on track, and it became very clear that they believed they were talking to someone who, at least on this subject, had lost all connection with reality.   

 

That episode confirmed for me that Sullivan wasn't a responsible journalist; he was a man on a his own personal mission, driven by motives I didn't understand.    He wasn't a well educated sports fan, watching sports and reacting to what he saw.   He was a guy who for some reason lived to bash the Bills, and went out of his way to find reasons he could bash them.   As I noted above, in recent press conferences it was completely clear that he would ask questions designed to create contradictions with what other representatives of the organization had said, so that then he could claim that the Bills were lying to the press.    

 

He simply was not a responsible journalist, at least not so far as the Bills were concerned.  

 

He was a man with deep bitterness towards the city and the sports teams. Most of all, bitterness towards himself. And his gift of creating strong emotional response through his writing, was wasted on creating negativity instead of optimism and hope to a city that needed it more than any other.

 

This might seem extreme, but the sports fans in this city just got out of a very abusive relationship with Jerry Sullivan. Now that the drought is over, it's time to heal and move on. People will be shocked how much the vibe at OBD will improve without this guy in the media room.

[section122]

To get this out in front:  I didn't care for Sullivan's articles and haven't read them in some time.  That is mainly due to me despising the Skip Bayless school of journalism.  As much as Tim Graham was a tool here and on twitter he wrote some incredible pieces.  That said there are so many lies and stupid statements hidden in this article.

 

Sullivan:

The message at the end was that my voice had become tired, and he didn’t use the words ‘bad for business,’ but that was clearly the message.”

“At one point, [Connelly] told me that even I seemed tired with my column, and I jumped on him for that,” Sullivan added. “Don’t ever put words in my mouth.”

So to Sully he can put words in Connely's mouth but not the other way around?  These lines are right next to each other!  How does he not see the hypocrisy?

DiCesare said he came to a similar conclusion. Gleason and Sullivan ranked among the best-read writers for the paper’s website each week, based on metrics that DiCesare could access.

Note the caveat he put in at the end.  Based on the metrics he could access.  Perhaps there were more that showed that not to be the case?  It is not uncommon for management to have numbers, info, etc... that rank and file or even middle management don't.

 

Graham:

For the first time in my career at The Buffalo News I thought to myself, ‘I’m not going to retire from here.’ 

Umm Mr. Graham this was your second stint with the news.  You had previously left after 8 years and were gone for 3 years.

 

Sullivan again: 

 “I recall one specific major staff meeting, not just sports but the whole department, one of the advertising people joked in front of the whole room about Sully costing us that money. I think there was a general understanding that it as negative sports writing that caused the Pegulas to pull that.”

“When there are only two teams in town, and they’ve already pulled accounts for negative sports writing; when there are only two columnists, whether it’s overt or otherwise, there’s at least a subliminal desire on the part of the people running the sports department to lighten the touch,” added Sullivan. “It’s a business. The biggest business is right across the street.”

 

however earlier in the article:

No one had told Gleason or Sullivan (or anyone else we spoke with) to lighten up their criticism or take it easier on the two big local sports teams. Management and the writers were all clear on that.

So again Sully is either lying or putting words in other people's mouth which he was oh so upset about earlier.

 

Sullivan echoed those comments, saying The News “absolutely” needs a dedicated sport columnist - ideally two, with different voices.

Except the BN didn't have that they had 2 extremely negative type writers who only focused only on the bad.  They didn't have good cop bad cop they had bad cop whiny cop.  This again is where Tim Graham elevated himself above the other 2 columnists.  He wrote human interest pieces, background pieces, etc...

 

“The Athletic was truly not on my radar when I took the buyout. I knew that they were probably coming, but I was planning on taking the summer off,” says Vogl.

So they weren't on his radar but he knew who they were and that they were probably "coming" what does that even mean?

 

“Times are tough for newspapers, but they kept that band together for a long time,” said an anonymous Buffalo News contributor, who also noted that morale at the outlet has taken a hit. “Pound for pound, that was one of the best staffs in the country. But you’ve got to remember, many of the departures in the sports department weren’t forced. The News did not want to lose Bucky, Sully, Vogl and Tim. But they looked at how things were going, and decided it was an easy time to jump ship.”

This entire article was painted as whoa is us from the writers perspective.  Yet here it is from a remaining staffer that it was their decision.  It very much reads to me that the sports department was being reigned in and that the old timers weren't a fan of change.  Sullivan wouldn't change from extremely negative to balanced, Graham and Vogl were against the BN Blitz, Gleason didn't like the new direction they were headed in.  

 

I am interested though in what happens to the readership numbers now that the negativity has been removed.  Will it increase viewers or will they find something new to be the excuse why they don't read?