Shaw66 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, musichunch said: 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. Bitter is a word I've used often to describe. I think you're exactly right about this. And, as I've said about the guy for a long, he's a really good writer. His columns are well constructed, and his writing is clear and engaging. The problem was that, for whatever reason, his attitude was venomous. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his editors had tried to get him to adjust his attitude. Not that I'm a psychologist, but he seemed to me to have some internal anger that got the better of him. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, section122 said: 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? Have they announced who will be filling in? I feel like that will go a long way, as I doubt people are going to sign up just because those guys are out. The new guys need to be a draw of some kind. If they are new blood it may be best to make a few of their first pieces free so people can get a taste of the new writing prior to their pieces getting gated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, musichunch said: 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. I've chosen you as the 100th poster to put forth a 10 cent psych evaluation of Sullivan. Please put forth all of the evidence you have collected that prompted you to write the bolded statement. Also, wow! Jerry alone casted the pall over that media room.....not the 17 years of futility, mediocrities in the FO and on the coaching staff, awful roster decision and poor choices?? Well I guess the rest of the reporters can get back to the real nitty gritty---asking if the team is ready for (opposing team), who is/isn't willing to admit to giving 110% out there, what were your thoughts about (player)'s performance today, and whether it truly is a team effort.... Edited June 25, 2018 by Mr. WEO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: 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. Agreed. Jerry has a petty streak a mile wide. If he doesn't like a player personally, then his writing will be skewed to reflect that. Case in point was Mario Williams and Bruce Smith, who he had an epic hard on for for many years. This interview was very telling in that regard: https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news "Mario Williams hands down as the most difficult guy to cover. He was a creep who tried to avoid the media on Wednesdays and had zero to say about anything. No depth to the guy. That gives him the edge over Bruce Smith, who was a self-absorbed !@#$ who kissed the national media's ass, and John Fina, who was condescending and liked to think he was smarter than everyone else." IMO, Sully's greatest failing is that he's just another guy on a bar stool who can write reasonably well. He doesn't have the depth to be interesting or informative so his POV is to simply be another fan. That's way too limited and, ultimately, a dead end for maintaining reader interest. Throw in his vindictive quirks and you get boring pretty fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToGoGo Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I've chosen you as the 100th poster to put forth a 10 cent psych evaluation of Sullivan. Please put forth all of the evidence you have collected that prompted you to write the bolded statement. Also, wow! Jerry alone casted the pall over that media room.....not the 17 years of futility, mediocrities in the FO and on the coaching staff, awful roster decision and poor choices?? Well I guess the rest of the reporters can get back to the real nitty gritty---asking if the team is ready for (opposing team), who is/isn't willing to admit to giving 110% out there, what were your thoughts about (player)'s performance today, and whether it truly is a team effort.... Low quality post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 1 minute ago, musichunch said: Low quality post. Should be all the more easy for you to answer then.... 5 minutes ago, Lurker said: Agreed. Jerry has a petty streak a mile wide. If he doesn't like a player personally, then his writing will be skewed to reflect that. Case in point was Mario Williams and Bruce Smith, who he had an epic hard on for for many years. This interview was very telling in that regard: https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news "Mario Williams hands down as the most difficult guy to cover. He was a creep who tried to avoid the media on Wednesdays and had zero to say about anything. No depth to the guy. That gives him the edge over Bruce Smith, who was a self-absorbed !@#$ who kissed the national media's ass, and John Fina, who was condescending and liked to think he was smarter than everyone else." IMO, Sully's greatest failing is that he's just another guy on a bar stool who can write reasonably well. He doesn't have the depth to be interesting or informative so his POV is to simply be another fan. That's way too limited and, ultimately, a dead end for maintaining reader interest. Throw in his vindictive quirks and you get boring pretty fast... What if all that is true? I'm betting other reporters had the same interactions with Williams, for instance. She he not put it in print? Look, the number of times any football player says anything interesting or thought provoking before or after the game can be counted, per year, without taking off one's shoes. The whole goofiness of packing a locker room with press after a game to ask the same predictable questions so they can record the same tired clichéd responses...this just BEGS for a different take, I think. This is an opinion (remind yourself) of a guy who has been around the sport and those teams for a long time--he's not reporting as a "fan". Posters who should have little to say in the Jerry's gone discussion include those who "hate his takes/bitterness/etc"--yet still read him, and those who don't read him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToGoGo Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Should be all the more easy for you to answer then.... If there was a block option, I would have used it on you long ago. Please stop talking to me, and I promise to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Lurker said: "Mario Williams hands down as the most difficult guy to cover. He was a creep who tried to avoid the media on Wednesdays and had zero to say about anything. No depth to the guy. That gives him the edge over Bruce Smith, who was a self-absorbed !@#$ who kissed the national media's ass, and John Fina, who was condescending and liked to think he was smarter than everyone else." This is a perfect example. Without trying to demean the guy, I thought from his early days in Buffalo that Mario is not very bright. He just isn't. He was clearly uncomfortable in press conferences, interviews, etc. because he seemed to understand that it was easy to get caught saying something foolish and he didn't want to get caught. So he was cautious, and he never seemed to figure out how to say things that were particularly interesting or insightful without sounding stupid. I always gave him credit for being cautious. Sullivan complaining that Mario was difficult to cover was typical Sullivan. If Mario is a difficult interview and you want to write about him, then how about doing a little homework? How about getting comments about him from his coaches and teammates? How about figuring out who his best friend on the team is and spend some time interviewing him? Sullivan often struck as feeling entitled to have people simply GIVE him the meat he needed for his pieces, and if other guy didn't do that there was something wrong with the other guy. Whaley didn't give him what he wanted to write, so he savaged Whaley. Mostly, I long for old-fashioned columns, the kind people don't write much any more. Oddly, one of the best I've seen lately is the piece Chris Brown did about Harrison Phillips. Brown dug out some interesting comments from Phillips and people who know him, and he put together an interesting piece about the kind of guy Phillips is. I know Chris is only going to write nice upbeat stuff that makes the guy sound like an all-star, so the piece may have been more one-sided than a more balanced look, but at least it told a story that gave me some insight into the guy. There are plenty of stories - about Kyle, about McCarron, about Hyde - they all have stories. It takes work to flesh out those stories. It's much easier just to pick on a subject that you have an opinion about and give your opinion. All you need is something to start with. Sullivan didn't like Mario because Mario never gave him anything to start with, so he criticized Mario for THAT, as though as spoon feeding material to Sullivan was part of Mario's job description. One of the problem with modern journalism, including sports journalism, is that if you aren't writing about a problem, you're viewed as uninteresting. In Sullivan's case, he seemed to look for problems that weren't even there. Sports writers are always looking for the scoop, always making predictions, always looking to second guess management. Management makes hundreds of decisions every week, and they make some of them wrong. It's in the nature of managing any business. Sportswriters are these self-appointed experts who pick on this decision or that and blast management for having made it wrong, often before it's clear whether the decision was good or bad. But that isn't the point - whether the decision is good or bad doesn't really matter. What matters is whether the sum total of the decisions management makes is good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: What if all that is true? I'm betting other reporters had the same interactions with Williams, for instance. She he not put it in print? No, he shouldn't put it in print. Why not? A couple of reasons: 1. Sullivan's job is easier if he has access to the people he's writing about. Saying in print that Williams is difficult to interview isn't likely to make Williams want to talk to him in the future. That is, saying something like that, which really doesn't have anything to do with what kind of football player Williams, is likely to limit rather than increase his access to Williams. In fact, I believe that happened to Sullivan with a lot of the Bills, particularly the coaches. When he loses access, his columns suffer. The fact that Mario was a tough interview just means that it's a little harder to write about him than to write about someone who's an easy interview. His job is to write about the Bills, sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's tougher. The correct response is NOT to complain that the guy is a tough interview. The correct response is to work a little harder at developing a relationship with the guy so that he'll open up a little more. 2. It' simple character assassination. What's the point of saying Williams was difficult? The adage is "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all." Now, I know that it's different for a journalist, because his job is to speak the truth about the guy, nice or not. But there are limits to that. If you don't like how he plays football, sure, say it. If you ask around and you find that he's generally a nasty guy and has no friends on the team, sure, say it. What's the point of saying the guy's a lousy interview? Or a lousy dresser? Or a lousy bowler? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 Absolutely no surprise now that the BN Blitz was and is a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, musichunch said: If there was a block option, I would have used it on you long ago. Please stop talking to me, and I promise to do the same. Except that there is an "ignore" function (pretty much works like a block). On a web browser, hover the mouse over the user's name. You will see 3 options, "message" "ignore user" and "find content". Just choose the middle road. You're welcome 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 2 hours ago, corta765 said: 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. No, they weren't forced out but they obviously had a number in mind when they offered it that they expected to reduce their workforce by. The BN seems like its in complete disarray with no clue how to fix it and no clear cut plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToGoGo Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 21 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Except that there is an "ignore" function (pretty much works like a block). On a web browser, hover the mouse over the user's name. You will see 3 options, "message" "ignore user" and "find content". Just choose the middle road. You're welcome Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 I very much doubt Sully cast a pall over the newsroom. I know for a fact most of the other writers liked him as a person and colleague and fellow writer, and his negativism didnt leak into other's stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, musichunch said: If there was a block option, I would have used it on you long ago. Please stop talking to me, and I promise to do the same. There is a block/ignore option. Just go to your settings and scroll down to the white flag icon and click it. But before you do, try to read this other BuffaloRumblings piece on Sullivan to get a better understanding of how wrong you post was. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: No, he shouldn't put it in print. Why not? A couple of reasons: 1. Sullivan's job is easier if he has access to the people he's writing about. Saying in print that Williams is difficult to interview isn't likely to make Williams want to talk to him in the future. That is, saying something like that, which really doesn't have anything to do with what kind of football player Williams, is likely to limit rather than increase his access to Williams. In fact, I believe that happened to Sullivan with a lot of the Bills, particularly the coaches. When he loses access, his columns suffer. The fact that Mario was a tough interview just means that it's a little harder to write about him than to write about someone who's an easy interview. His job is to write about the Bills, sometimes it's easier, sometimes it's tougher. The correct response is NOT to complain that the guy is a tough interview. The correct response is to work a little harder at developing a relationship with the guy so that he'll open up a little more. 2. It' simple character assassination. What's the point of saying Williams was difficult? The adage is "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all." Now, I know that it's different for a journalist, because his job is to speak the truth about the guy, nice or not. But there are limits to that. If you don't like how he plays football, sure, say it. If you ask around and you find that he's generally a nasty guy and has no friends on the team, sure, say it. What's the point of saying the guy's a lousy interview? Or a lousy dresser? Or a lousy bowler? Sullivan made those comments about Williams after Williams was long gone from Buffalo. He was asked by an interviewer who was the beest and worst interviews and he gave an honest answer--it was hardly a unique take on Williams...and it doesn't qualify as assassination. you should read this, https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4_kidd_4 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 OBD is so fragile that a columnist alone affects their vibe?? My goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Sullivan made those comments about Williams after Williams was long gone from Buffalo. He was asked by an interviewer who was the beest and worst interviews and he gave an honest answer--it was hardly a unique take on Williams...and it doesn't qualify as assassination. you should read this, https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news Thanks. I'll go read it. And yes, I'd guessed that the Williams comment was an after-the-fact comment. It sounded that way. But that doesn't change what I said. Do you think a Buffalo Bill who sees that comment from Sullivan, whenever he made, will be less inclined to open up to Sullivan when he's interviewed? I do. I'm a football player, and he's a football writer. Why would I want to talk to him if he's going to make gratuitous negative comments in the press about my personality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: Sullivan made those comments about Williams after Williams was long gone from Buffalo. He was asked by an interviewer who was the beest and worst interviews and he gave an honest answer--it was hardly a unique take on Williams...and it doesn't qualify as assassination. you should read this, https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/11/5/16567966/jerry-sullivan-will-not-be-ignored-buffalo-bills-the-buffalo-news Thanks. That's an interesting piece. Anyone with a Catherine Zeta-Jones poster can't be all bad. I've never said I thought Sullivan's a bad guy. I think much of his writing is nasty, vindictive and reflects a deep-seated unhappiness. He calls Bruce Smith self-absorbed, and that's a word that's easily applied to him. I've known for years that Jeff Jacobs is his friend. I read the Hartford Courant every day and make a point of reading Jeff Jacobs. He's written some of the best human-interest columns about sports figures I've ever read. In all my years of reading Jeff Jacobs, he's gone off the deep-end once in anything that compares to Sullivan's antagonism toward the Bills. Jacobs got upset with Jim Calhoun, UConn's Hall of Fame head coach. It was the equivalent of being upset with Marv Levy in the midst of the Super Bowl days. Jacobs went after Calhoun about something he had done, maybe some things that got UConn into trouble or potential trouble with the NCAA. It was intense for weeks, and Calhoun, being no shrinking violet, fought back. I believe they went several years before Calhoun would talk to him again, in part because Jacobs wouldn't let it go. It was like a Bills coach not talking to the lead columnist at the News. But that's where the similarity ends. Eventually, Jacobs realized that it was time to bury the hatchet and they got together and agreed it was time to move on. I think Jacobs initiated the talks. I have no idea why that happened, but Jacobs is a smart guy, and I would guess that he understood that it was difficult to write quality columns about the biggest sports team in town if he wasn't talking to the head coach. He may also have been told the same thing by his editors. So Jim and Jeff kissed and made up, and they once again say good things about each other, as they should. There are some scars - it was nasty, but they are behaving like adults again. Jacobs has written about the experience in his columns. Unlike Jacobs, Sullivan never seemed to understand that his relationship to the players and coaches is important to his ability to do his job, so it seems he never bothered to work on the relationships. I'll note that in this article Sullivan clearly understands the newspaper business is in trouble and big changes are coming, so it seems a bit disingenuous that he reacted with such surprise and indignation when the News did exactly what he's seen other newspapers do for years. In fact, his good friend Jeff Jacobs left the Courant under similar circumstances at the end of last year - took a buyout and now still covers UConn basketball for other Connecticut outlets. Sullivan's irate reaction to his plight is a good measure of his self-absorption. Edited June 25, 2018 by Shaw66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: Thanks. I'll go read it. And yes, I'd guessed that the Williams comment was an after-the-fact comment. It sounded that way. But that doesn't change what I said. Do you think a Buffalo Bill who sees that comment from Sullivan, whenever he made, will be less inclined to open up to Sullivan when he's interviewed? I do. I'm a football player, and he's a football writer. Why would I want to talk to him if he's going to make gratuitous negative comments in the press about my personality? I bet players' personalities come out no matter who is interviewing them. I would also bet that more than one of Mario's teammates felt the same way about him as Sullivan did. He clearly appreciated how Kent Hull interacted with the press. He was asked to pick the best and the worst. HE gave an honest (und really unsurprising) answer. 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: Thanks. That's an interesting piece. Anyone with a Catherine Zeta-Jones poster can't be all bad. I've never said I thought Sullivan's a bad guy. I think much of his writing is nasty, vindictive and reflects a deep-seated unhappiness. He calls Bruce Smith self-absorbed, and that's a word that's easily applied to him. I've known for years that Jeff Jacobs is his friend. I read the Hartford Courant every day and make a point of reading Jeff Jacobs. He's written some of the best human-interest columns about sports figures I've ever read. In all my years of reading Jeff Jacobs, he's gone off the deep-end once in anything that compares to Sullivan's antagonism toward the Bills. Jacobs got upset with Jim Calhoun, UConn's Hall of Fame head coach. It was the equivalent of being upset with Marv Levy in the midst of the Super Bowl days. Jacobs went after Calhoun about something he had done, maybe some things that got UConn into trouble or potential trouble with the NCAA. It was intense for weeks, and Calhoun, being no shrinking violet, fought back. I believe they went several years before Calhoun would talk to him again, in part because Jacobs wouldn't let it go. It was like a Bills coach not talking to the lead columnist at the News. But that's where the similarity ends. Eventually, Jacobs realized that it was time to bury the hatchet and they got together and agreed it was time to move on. I think Jacobs initiated the talks. I have no idea why that happened, but Jacobs is a smart guy, and I would guess that he understood that it was difficult to write quality columns about the biggest sports team in town if he wasn't talking to the head coach. He may also have been told the same thing by his editors. So Jim and Jeff kissed and made up, and they once again say good things about each other, as they should. There are some scars - it was nasty, but they are behaving like adults again. Jacobs has written about the experience in his columns. Unlike Jacobs, Sullivan never seemed to understand that his relationship to the players and coaches is important to his ability to do his job, so it seems he never bothered to work on the relationships. I'll note that in this article Sullivan clearly understands the newspaper business is in trouble and big changes are coming, so it seems a bit disingenuous that he reacted with such surprise and indignation when the News did exactly what he's seen other newspapers do for years. In fact, his good friend Jeff Jacobs left the Courant under similar circumstances at the end of last year - took a buyout and now still covers UConn basketball for other Connecticut outlets. Sullivan's irate reaction to his plight is a good measure of his self-absorption. I really don't get how you would see a "deep seated unhappiness". He comes off as a pro who has been around and not just in Buffalo, and not just the Bills---yet he came to Buffalo because he wanted to. Jeff Jacobs got his column yanked and then was offered a buyout? I didn't know that. But that is what Sullivan was reacting to--it was not disingenuous at all. It was genuine indignation that he was losing his column. When asked about a Fire Jerry Sullivan petition, he said this: "I'm actually a little disappointed to hear that only 27 people signed the petition. It makes me feel I'm not penetrating as much as I would like with the audience. Bills fans are passionate people. They're fans, which comes from fanatic. When you criticize them, it's like questioning their religion. They call me negative. I call it critical. I say I'm paid to be the Bills' biggest critic. It's hard to hear the truth sometimes. " People here somehow (hmmm) forget that the bolded part is completely correct---and the BN paid him for YEARS to be exactly that. And: "It amazes me how many people rip me and tell me to retire but still read my columns and tweets. I'm flattered by that. I don't have all the answers. I take all comments seriously and incorporate other people's opinions into my overall understanding." Jerry knows who he is, and so did all of his employers and editors at the paper. Now, (suddenly?) they did some research that said that because of his column, people would not pay for that crappy BN online content. Sure..... Let's face it, if you are writing for the Buffalo Blitz, you are working for PSE. Jerry said he didn't want to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts