I always defend WGR...

[PromoTheRobot]

The point is I don't listen to WGR...or at least I rarely if ever put it on. I will if there is some breaking Bills/Sabres news I want to follow. But day-to-day? Never. If WGR actually discussed Bills/Sabres/Buffalo sports in general without resorting to stupid negativity I would listen daily. I used to listen to WNSA every day.

 

PTR

[bbb]

If they dumped S&B and replaced them with Brian Koziol or some other lesser known person either at the station or from the outside, does anyone believe ratings will go down or do people just want to tune into and listen to "Buffalo Sports Talk"(and I use the term loosely when it comes to some of the programming they put on).

 

I sure wouldn't be listening to that......How can you stand listening to nothing but sports talk. It's like hanging out with my friends. We came together through sports and it's what we talk about the most, but we talk about a lot of other stuff, just like S&B, Rome, etc.

[Lori]

Just for the record, y'all are freaking me out when you use S&B. Five years later, I still read that as Simon & Brinson.

 

Back to the show ...

[Delete This Account]

Just sharing my personal impression from my few encounters with the man.

 

Perhaps his demeanor is the standard press box way of life, and I misinterpreted that as his de facto attitude. Regardless, my impression of his work remains the same.

 

As far as my perception of you, John, I wouldn't begin to assume...I've never met you. You see, I believe that people should base their opinions of others from personal experience, not hear-say, not what your friend tells you, and not what the media writes/types/posts.

 

The topic of Sullivan and his writing/radio persona was brought up in this thread, and I provided my opinion. This is, after all, a forum for opinions, be they positive or negative regarding the topic at hand.

 

Unless, of course, the attainment of a handle on this board comes with a prerequisite for pom poms.

 

 

Bandit:

No problem with sharing your opinion. I wanted to share mine in a clever -- way too clever, probably -- bid to provide perspective on what it's like to be in a press box, because all too often -- rightly and wrongly -- some of us are perceived to be nasty, tempermental, curmudgeons (thanks Lori), who bottom feed for anything negative.

That's not always the case, though covering teams that don't win makes it difficult to be positive. Then again, winning teams also require being covered with an eye toward skepticism, because that is the instinct, I think, that makes for a good reporter.

And I think that's the instinct that good reporters continue to sharpen when they come off as sounding miserable.

 

With that in mind, a press box is very much like a reporters' clubhouse, a bastion of crusty opinion and one-liners that gives us an opportunity to show how smart we are. And we're really not that very smart, but we're pretty good at pretending.

 

But it makes for certain amusements.

I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher."

 

Ho, ho.

 

I'm not sure if that's anything different than some might say to friends while watching the game at a bar, on TV or at the stadium. And I've read enough searing opinions on this board to question whether some here aren't worse -- far worse -- in how their comments go beyond the line of good taste and logic.

 

Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..."

 

I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is.

 

I'm not here to defend Sully. He can do that far better than I.

My point here is that coming off as miserable isn't considered an altogether bad thing in my line of work. And when you've covered the Bills for so long, misery, I guess, just might like company.

 

 

jw

[ans4e64]

Just for the record, y'all are freaking me out when you use S&B. Five years later, I still read that as Simon & Brinson.

 

Back to the show ...

 

Was that really only 5 years ago? Seems longer.

[Lori]

Was that really only 5 years ago? Seems longer.

Summer of '04.

 

And John, that post was worth 16 pages of this thread.

[Preston Ridlehuber]

Bandit:

No problem with sharing your opinion. I wanted to share mine in a clever -- way too clever, probably -- bid to provide perspective on what it's like to be in a press box, because all too often -- rightly and wrongly -- some of us are perceived to be nasty, tempermental, curmudgeons (thanks Lori), who bottom feed for anything negative.

That's not always the case, though covering teams that don't win makes it difficult to be positive. Then again, winning teams also require being covered with an eye toward skepticism, because that is the instinct, I think, that makes for a good reporter.

And I think that's the instinct that good reporters continue to sharpen when they come off as sounding miserable.

 

With that in mind, a press box is very much like a reporters' clubhouse, a bastion of crusty opinion and one-liners that gives us an opportunity to show how smart we are. And we're really not that very smart, but we're pretty good at pretending.

 

But it makes for certain amusements.

I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher."

 

Ho, ho.

 

I'm not sure if that's anything different than some might say to friends while watching the game at a bar, on TV or at the stadium. And I've read enough searing opinions on this board to question whether some here aren't worse -- far worse -- in how their comments go beyond the line of good taste and logic.

 

Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..."

 

I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is.

 

I'm not here to defend Sully. He can do that far better than I.

My point here is that coming off as miserable isn't considered an altogether bad thing in my line of work. And when you've covered the Bills for so long, misery, I guess, just might like company.

 

 

jw

 

For what its worth, I enjoy your work very much and Jerry is one of my favorite reporters. But I read everything I can and listen to as much as well, even if I have a personal distaste for a particular writer or talk show host. The older I get the more I realize that some of my best business ideas come from those people who I share nothing in common or sometimes don;t even like. Likewise, some of my most memorable conversations come from those whose opinions tend to be the polar opposite of my own. As one of my favorite song writers once wrote, we all did see it the same we just saw it from a different point of view.

[cåblelady]

But it makes for certain amusements.

I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher."

 

Ho, ho.

Priceless!

[ans4e64]

Bandit:

No problem with sharing your opinion. I wanted to share mine in a clever -- way too clever, probably -- bid to provide perspective on what it's like to be in a press box, because all too often -- rightly and wrongly -- some of us are perceived to be nasty, tempermental, curmudgeons (thanks Lori), who bottom feed for anything negative.

That's not always the case, though covering teams that don't win makes it difficult to be positive. Then again, winning teams also require being covered with an eye toward skepticism, because that is the instinct, I think, that makes for a good reporter.

And I think that's the instinct that good reporters continue to sharpen when they come off as sounding miserable.

 

With that in mind, a press box is very much like a reporters' clubhouse, a bastion of crusty opinion and one-liners that gives us an opportunity to show how smart we are. And we're really not that very smart, but we're pretty good at pretending.

 

But it makes for certain amusements.

I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher."

 

Ho, ho.

 

I'm not sure if that's anything different than some might say to friends while watching the game at a bar, on TV or at the stadium. And I've read enough searing opinions on this board to question whether some here aren't worse -- far worse -- in how their comments go beyond the line of good taste and logic.

 

Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..."

 

I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is.

 

I'm not here to defend Sully. He can do that far better than I.

My point here is that coming off as miserable isn't considered an altogether bad thing in my line of work. And when you've covered the Bills for so long, misery, I guess, just might like company.

 

 

jw

 

Your post seems to suggest that good reporters are negative, and that the behavior is justified because the team hasn't won in so long. Comparing a line of work to comments that "might" be made by fans at a bar? Really? So because there are negative fans that exist somewhere around Buffalo, that means that reporters are allowed to fill columns with words that make us readers feel the writer is on the verge of slitting their wrists?

 

A positive report with an eye towards skepticism does seem like the modus of good reporting, but that is far from what goes on here in Buffalo. I understand the team hasn't won in so long, and I understand that it makes people feel down in the dumps, but are you telling me that means there is nothing to ever be excited about? Sully and Schopp can't be excited after a draft where we "might" have filled a bundle of needs? We've added new players to the team that have talent, we have a new offensive line, we signed one of the best wide receivers in NFL history, yet most reporters can't grasp the excitement.

 

I don't know if I just misread your post, but I'll never believe that 100% negative reporting is EVER the mark of a good reporter, and I'll NEVER believe that it is ok to report that way just because you're frustrated with the team not winning. You can sometimes end up on the all negative side, and sometimes on the all positive, or even find a happy medium somewhere in the middle, but to always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstances is never a good reporter in my mind. It is a child.

[Rubes]

And John, that post was worth 16 pages of this thread.

 

I feel quite lucky that I happened upon this thread at page 16, and got to read that right off the bat.

[Lori]

Always/never: dangerous words. Go back and read Sully's stuff from last season's 5-1 start, and tell me he's 100 percent negative.

[Delete This Account]

Your post seems to suggest that good reporters are negative, and that the behavior is justified because the team hasn't won in so long. Comparing a line of work to comments that "might" be made by fans at a bar? Really? So because there are negative fans that exist somewhere around Buffalo, that means that reporters are allowed to fill columns with words that make us readers feel the writer is on the verge of slitting their wrists?

 

A positive report with an eye towards skepticism does seem like the modus of good reporting, but that is far from what goes on here in Buffalo. I understand the team hasn't won in so long, and I understand that it makes people feel down in the dumps, but are you telling me that means there is nothing to ever be excited about? Sully and Schopp can't be excited after a draft where we "might" have filled a bundle of needs? We've added new players to the team that have talent, we have a new offensive line, we signed one of the best wide receivers in NFL history, yet most reporters can't grasp the excitement.

 

I don't know if I just misread your post, but I'll never believe that 100% negative reporting is EVER the mark of a good reporter, and I'll NEVER believe that it is ok to report that way just because you're frustrated with the team not winning. You can sometimes end up on the all negative side, and sometimes on the all positive, or even find a happy medium somewhere in the middle, but to always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstances is never a good reporter in my mind. It is a child.

Good reporters are skeptical.

Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference.

Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists.

And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do.

I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season.

 

Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out.

 

And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails.

 

Respectfully,

 

jw

 

Ooops: Forgot to add "always" into posters quote.

[Preston Ridlehuber]

Good reporters are skeptical.

Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference.

Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists.

And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do.

I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season.

 

Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out.

 

And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails.

 

Respectfully,

 

jw

 

 

Two specific examples,

Jerry has been taking grief for being too excited last year at the 5 and 1 start.

Schoop loves the TO signing and says so whenever its brought up

[PromoTheRobot]

Always/never: dangerous words. Go back and read Sully's stuff from last season's 5-1 start, and tell me he's 100 percent negative.

I could see Sully fighting his own arm like Dr. Strangelove...MUST...BE....POSITIVE...FIGHT....NEGATIVE...URGE.

 

PTR

[stuckincincy]

Good reporters are skeptical.

Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference.

Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists.

And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do.

I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season.

 

Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out.

 

And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails.

 

Respectfully,

 

jw

 

Ooops: Forgot to add "always" into posters quote.

 

Here in Cincinnati, Clear Channel axed a couple of radio shows. Notably, Paul Daugherty's. A good journalist, and had a fine show. He still writes for the Cincinnati Enquirer.

 

You know the biz - ratings, cut costs, get infomercial cash, and the like. There's only one local sports show left, now.

 

And as expected, it leans towards the "shock jock" end of the spectrum.

[C.Biscuit97]

Just for the record, y'all are freaking me out when you use S&B. Five years later, I still read that as Simon & Brinson.

 

Back to the show ...

 

 

God, I miss Empire. Unfortunately, despite having 2 major league teams, people in WNY will have to settle for minor league coverage. It's a shame because there many talented individuals in the sports world that would love to be here.

[thebandit27]

Bandit:

No problem with sharing your opinion. I wanted to share mine in a clever -- way too clever, probably -- bid to provide perspective on what it's like to be in a press box, because all too often -- rightly and wrongly -- some of us are perceived to be nasty, tempermental, curmudgeons (thanks Lori), who bottom feed for anything negative.

That's not always the case, though covering teams that don't win makes it difficult to be positive. Then again, winning teams also require being covered with an eye toward skepticism, because that is the instinct, I think, that makes for a good reporter.

And I think that's the instinct that good reporters continue to sharpen when they come off as sounding miserable.

 

With that in mind, a press box is very much like a reporters' clubhouse, a bastion of crusty opinion and one-liners that gives us an opportunity to show how smart we are. And we're really not that very smart, but we're pretty good at pretending.

 

But it makes for certain amusements.

I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher."

 

Ho, ho.

 

I'm not sure if that's anything different than some might say to friends while watching the game at a bar, on TV or at the stadium. And I've read enough searing opinions on this board to question whether some here aren't worse -- far worse -- in how their comments go beyond the line of good taste and logic.

 

Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..."

 

I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is.

 

I'm not here to defend Sully. He can do that far better than I.

My point here is that coming off as miserable isn't considered an altogether bad thing in my line of work. And when you've covered the Bills for so long, misery, I guess, just might like company.

 

 

jw

 

Well John, I'd imagine you have the pulse of the press box as well as anyone, and there's certainly room for different personas in any venture.

 

I agree that covering any team involves a prerequisite amount of skepticism if you're to do your job well. I would feel as slighted as anyone if it was all-happy, all the time. You and I just happen to have different opinions about Sullivan, and we're both basing them off of our encounters with him, so I'll gladly agree to disagree on that point.

 

As for the folks on this board, the line between making an obseration about a man's attitude (which I hope is how my initial post regarding Sullivan was received) and attacking a man's character is--in my mine--huge. Point well received, and I'll try to continue to be dilligent about that in the future.

[OCinBuffalo]

Good reporters are skeptical.

Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference.

Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists.

And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do.

I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season.

 

Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out.

 

And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails.

 

Respectfully,

 

jw

 

Ooops: Forgot to add "always" into posters quote.

And while this is all very beguiling, it doesn't address the original, albeit fumbled, point of this thread.

 

Schopp said he doesn't like talking about the Bills and only does it because his job says he has to, period. We all heard it. And no phony-ass denials from WGR or their surrogates(um, Preston) changes that.

 

Having an(I'll be as fair as I can be) objective attitude towards work is one thing. But complaining about doing your job on air, especially when you have a reasonably successful show, supposed support from your sponsors, and people carrying so much water for you that they are still spinning up the positive 16 pages into a thread:

Schoop loves the TO signing and says so whenever its brought up

is not excusable, and exposes your contempt for your audience. Beyond being fairly unprofessional and stupid(see: 16 pages of this thread that has brought all kinds of trouble, program director quotes, nonsense defensive spin, and appearances from other members of the press), Schopp's comments simply aren't that entertaining, relevant, or interesting.

 

Would more people buy your stories if you complained about having to cover the Bills? How does Schopp complaining about having to talk about the Bills help the "business"? Most importantly: Why has there been a SIGNIFICANT uptick in Bills/NFL coverage every single day since these stupid comments were made? Coincidence?

[ans4e64]

Good reporters are skeptical.

Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference.

Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists.

And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do.

I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season.

 

Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out.

 

And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails.

 

Respectfully,

 

jw

 

Ooops: Forgot to add "always" into posters quote.

 

I am agreeing with you that good reporters are skeptical. All I'm saying is I picture that motto as positive writing with a skeptical edge to it. We hardly see that here. It is mostly negative, with a slight positive edge. There's a difference.

 

And onto your dare. I've never heard Schopp optimistic about anything regarding the Bills. This certainly doesn't mean he never is, as I have never listened to every word that's come out of his mouth. But I had never heard it.

 

I don't read enough of Sully's columns to know his general mood, I just hear his interviews on WGR. Howard and White always make fun of Sully because of how negative he is. It is so bad that people just laugh. Again, I don't know about his columns, or how he is in real life (don't really care), but I never see the positive but edgy theme you speak of here in Buffalo. At least with the bigger names.

[Lurker]

Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..."

 

I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is.

OK John, since you're gonna throw down the gauntlet...what the hell does any of my critique of Sullivan's work have to do with my assessment of his character?

 

I stand by my observation of his written work. IMO, he panders to the lowest common denominator of the BN audience, blowing in the wind, setting up straw men, and not doing the leg work to actually talk to real live sources (sure, sure, he's a columnist--he doesn't have to be informed to have an opinion), rather than taking a different path like Felser, Curran, Northrop, Carucci, and a host of [better] columnists at the News & Courier that have covered the Buffalo sports scene over the years.

 

I could care less if Jerry loves humanity in his off hours, or tries to help be a good husband/neighbor/golfer 365 days a year. I don't pay four bits for that.

 

Assinate that in your pipe and smoke it.