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?

[Shaw66]

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.  

[BuffaloHokie13]

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.

[Mr. WEO]

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

[Lurker]

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...

[ToGoGo]

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. 

[Mr. WEO]

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. 

[ToGoGo]

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. 

[Shaw66]

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.   

[Shaw66]

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?   

[Rico]

Absolutely no surprise now that the BN Blitz was and is a disaster. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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

[Big Turk]

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.

[ToGoGo]

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. 

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[Mr. WEO]

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

[Mr. WEO]

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

[4_kidd_4]

OBD is so fragile that a columnist alone affects their vibe??

 

My goodness.

[Shaw66]

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?   

[Shaw66]

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

[Mr. WEO]

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.