Whaley goes out with class. Buffalo Media...not so much.

[Thurman#1]

The decision to act in a professional manner in a business setting (1 Bills Dr.) and a courteous, respectful manner in non-business settings (certain eating and drinking establishments in Buffalo and elsewhere) is ALWAYS a choice. The bold text is a contradiction; they didn't chose to, but had to? They sabotaged their own ability for access and that's entirely on them. Ever wonder why certain members of the medial pool get unfettered access to top level execs with the club while others aren't afforded the same? Once you cross a certain line as some in the media have by acting a certain way in places that have nothing to do with anything football related, antennae are raised. When you make it a pattern of behavior over the years you simply can't expect favor in return. And when you let that cloud your ability to to see things objectively, you've lost all credibility.

 

 

You keep talking about access as if it's an issue. It isn't. Nobody cares that they aren't getting great access. If the Bills want to keep them out I have no problem with that.

 

But we understand when they say bad things about a bad team. That's their job.

 

And I have no idea what you're talking about with restaurants, but again, I just don't care.

 

Oh, and if you think the Buffalo media are expressing themselves impolitely, you'd be well-advised not to go to Philly, or NYC, or Chicago or D.C. or pretty much anywhere else, really.

[K-9]

 

 

You keep talking about access as if it's an issue. It isn't. Nobody cares that they aren't getting great access. If the Bills want to keep them out I have no problem with that.

 

But we understand when they say bad things about a bad team. That's their job.

 

And I have no idea what you're talking about with restaurants, but again, I just don't care.

 

Oh, and if you think the Buffalo media are expressing themselves impolitely, you'd be well-advised not to go to Philly, or NYC, or Chicago or D.C. or pretty much anywhere else, really.

Access is the lifeblood for reporters. Believe me, they care.

 

If you read earlier post, you'd understand I have no problem with reporters or anyone else saying "bad things" about the team. It's not only their job, it's their responsibility.

 

And it's not a question of expressing themselves impolitely, politely or any other way. It's a question of personal conduct. And some people need to remember that when they run into other people just trying to enjoy a beer or two away from the office. It's a simple point.

[oldmanfan]

 

 

Dude, the GM gave an address about leaving the Bills.

 

Of course they reported on it. And it was awful. They pointed out where it was good (he didn't attack the Bills) and where it was absolutely wretched (asked what you learned he said if he had to do it again he would make a plan to bring in a QB, essentially admitting that either he had no plan to bring in a QB when he was hired or he learned absolutely nothing on the job).

 

They were dead on target.

 

 

You and I have gone on and on about this for years now. You have never shown any evidence as to why your opinion on journalism should be taken more seriously than anyone else around here. Another poster in this thread indicates he is a former journalist and has issues with how the current writers do things. Do you have a journalism background? Do you have training others here do not have such that your opinion should carry any more weight than others when it comes to the level of journalism shown in the News and other outlets? If so please fill us in. Almost inevitably when there is a thread about the News writers you chime in to defend. That's your opinion fine, but let's not pretend it should carry any more or less weight than any others.

 

With this subject I have no issue with either Graham or Carucci writing anything. The ex-GM did an interview and it seems appropriate to address it. It is the insulting manner in which they do so. For Graham to say he was a waste of time is to me just childish. For Carucci when talking about Darby using phrases like "typical short sightedness" or "conveniently forgot" are insulting. unnecessary, and his point could have been easily made without resorting to what I again would call childish writing style. That to me is just piling on, or to use the phrase I did earlier spitting on the grave of the former GM. Each of these guys has written stuff I like, and why they choose to resort to such tactics is befuddling, because they're each better than that Which is why I miss the guys I grew up with like Felser, who never had to resort to such language to make a critical point.

[Thurman#1]

 

 

All of these are irrelevant to the topic of this thread. This thread's premise is that Whaley was treated unfairly with respect to the interview he gave on radio the other day. He was. They did not talk about how he handled his interview, they re-hashed crap they have been saying for years

 

No, he wasn't. He gave a horrible interview. They called it horrible.

 

And they certainly did specifically address what he said in the interview.

 

More, what he said in the interview defended his actions as GM. That made it very logical and relevant to point out his mistakes. Yeah, they'd pointed some of those mistakes out before. Whaley was trying desperately to polish a turd and pointing that out made total sense.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Thurman#1

[BmarvB]

Life long Bills fan. I do not know Doug Whaley. I live 600 miles from from Buffalo now. Prob won't run into him in a bar. His interview the other day was very well handled and showed a lot of class. Today I see article #3 bashing him still. What morons we have in the Buffalo media. Move on. Plenty of blame to go around

Agreed. The amount of class he showed clearly exposed the lack of class of the media

[HT02]

I agree 100%, it wasn't all his fault, I'm glad he's gone but no need to keep attacking the guy.

[K-9]

 

 

I beg to differ.

 

I don't think they chose to be unprofessional. At least not in all cases. They have a level of ineptitude that precludes them being professional. Did they not pay enough attention in journalism school? That would have been a choice that led to their poor job performance so I suppose you can call it a choice at some level or at least speculate that it was.

 

Let me give you an example: Jerry Sullivan walks into a bar 6 nights a week with the intention of meeting an attractive woman and getting laid. Clearly he hasn't gotten laid in a loooooooooooooooong time. Would you say that this is his choice or that he is simply ill equipped to achieve his goal? Don't try to confuse the issue by bringing up the possibility of hookers, etc.; just tell me if you still think things are always a choice.

Assuming healthy mind and body, yes, behaving certain ways or not is ALWAYS a choice.

[4merper4mer]

Assuming healthy mind and body, yes, behaving certain ways or not is ALWAYS a choice.

 

 

So if you walked into a local emergency room, put on a lab coat, a guy walked in with a gunshot wound, you performed surgery and he died on the operating table you would have decided to be a bad doctor? Jerry Sullivan is a socially inept sad little man. He no more chooses to fail at developing a business dialogue with the Bills FO than you chose to operate poorly.

[Thurman#1]

You and I have gone on and on about this for years now. You have never shown any evidence as to why your opinion on journalism should be taken more seriously than anyone else around here.

 

 

Nor have you.

 

 

You and I have gone on and on about this for years now. You have never shown any evidence as to why your opinion on journalism should be taken more seriously than anyone else around here. Another poster in this thread indicates he is a former journalist and has issues with how the current writers do things. Do you have a journalism background? Do you have training others here do not have such that your opinion should carry any more weight than others when it comes to the level of journalism shown in the News and other outlets? If so please fill us in.

 

Do you? Why is it necessary for people who disagree with you to do so, but not the people who agree with you or you yourself.

 

And I can point out currently-working journalists who disagree with you, not least the ones working at the News. Or the ones working at the vastly bigger Newsday who tried to hire Sully, who turned them down to come to the News.

 

Almost inevitably when there is a thread about the News writers you chime in to defend. That's your opinion fine, but let's not pretend it should carry any more or less weight than any others.

 

With this subject I have no issue with either Graham or Carucci writing anything. The ex-GM did an interview and it seems appropriate to address it. It is the insulting manner in which they do so. For Graham to say he was a waste of time is to me just childish. For Carucci when talking about Darby using phrases like "typical short sightedness" or "conveniently forgot" are insulting. unnecessary, and his point could have been easily made without resorting to what I again would call childish writing style. That to me is just piling on, or to use the phrase I did earlier spitting on the grave of the former GM. Each of these guys has written stuff I like, and why they choose to resort to such tactics is befuddling, because they're each better than that Which is why I miss the guys I grew up with like Felser, who never had to resort to such language to make a critical point.

 

 

Almost anytime a News writer writes anything negative about the Bills we hear a ton of nonsense about how it's bad journalism, when mostly what it is is someone writing bad things about a bad team that the poster is a fan of and doesn't want to hear bad things about.

 

The News isn't perfect. But they're a highly respected paper. That doesn't mean I agree with them always, I don't. But they write well and generally make me think.

 

What you refer to as insulting is essentially just your perspective. You've used the word a bunch of times now. What words specifically are insulting rather than just critical? "Shortsightedness," for instance ... isn't insulting, it's critical. And frankly true, as well. "He's a stupid man," would be insulting. And I agree 100% with Graham that his stewardship was a waste of time.

 

The roster has gotten worse under Whaley. Their record in the last five years started at 6-9, went 6-9 again, jumped to 9-7, dipped to 8-8 and ended up at 7-9. And they still don't appear to have a QB. A classic waste of time, IMHO. If you disagree, fine, that's your prerogative, but that's not insulting it's critical and all to correct.

 

I liked Felser too, a lot actually, but it's a different world now. If Felser were still writing, he wouldn't be writing like he did back then.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Thurman#1

[K-9]

 

 

So if you walked into a local emergency room, put on a lab coat, a guy walked in with a gunshot wound, you performed surgery and he died on the operating table you would have decided to be a bad doctor? Jerry Sullivan is a socially inept sad little man. He no more chooses to fail at developing a business dialogue with the Bills FO than you chose to operate poorly.

We are talking past each other and I'll let it go at that.

[row_33]

 

 

You haters need to make up your minds........was Terry Pegula wrong for firing him or is the media wrong for agreeing with Pegula?

 

Trying to force the role of Whaley with that of the media is a losing game from square one.

[4merper4mer]

Fans here B word about the media because "they are never positive!"

 

Well no ****. The team has been among the worst run franchise in all of sports.

 

Easy pickings.

 

 

That isn't true really. Some do complain about negativity for sure but not all. These guys are poor writers and childish. That is what receives most of the complaints.

[YoloinOhio]

Access is the lifeblood for reporters. Believe me, they care.

 

If you read earlier post, you'd understand I have no problem with reporters or anyone else saying "bad things" about the team. It's not only their job, it's their responsibility.

 

And it's not a question of expressing themselves impolitely, politely or any other way. It's a question of personal conduct. And some people need to remember that when they run into other people just trying to enjoy a beer or two away from the office. It's a simple point.

dying to know who made an arse of himself out in public toward a Bills exec but I can probably figure it out.

[Chandler#81]

 

Because they are not very good at their jobs. I am an ex journalist. A lot of their content is poorly written, poorly structured and lacking in original thought. They are right as much as they are wrong in my opinion, but the standard of journalism sucks.

 

Gone forever are 'the good old days' of Larry Felser and Jim Baker. With their passing went real sports journalism in Buffalo.

 

RIP.

[BringBackOrton]

 

yep, Schwartz and a top rated defense were merely bystanders...

Again, not Whaley creations.

[GunnerBill]

 

 

That isn't true really. Some do complain about negativity for sure but not all. These guys are poor writers and childish. That is what receives most of the complaints.

 

Correct. People see criticism of the BN and assume we are all butt hurt because they are critical. Often we just wish they'd do their jobs a bit better. I don't hate Sully's articles because he is negative.... I hate his articles / columns because they are amateurish in the way they are written.

Edited May 25, 2017 by GunnerBill

[Fixxxer]

Again, not Whaley creations.

 

sure thing, keep believing that.

[row_33]

Tip of the hat to those who consider the Whaley Era to be something remembered in all its tangible excellence...

[oldmanfan]

 

 

Nor have you.

 

 

 

Do you? Why is it necessary for people who disagree with you to do so, but not the people who agree with you or you yourself.

 

And I can point out currently-working journalists who disagree with you, not least the ones working at the News. Or the ones working at the vastly bigger Newsday who tried to hire Sully, who turned them down to come to the News.

 

 

 

Almost anytime a News writer writes anything negative about the Bills we hear a ton of nonsense about how it's bad journalism, when mostly what it is is someone writing bad things about a bad team that the poster is a fan of and doesn't want to hear bad things about.

 

The News isn't perfect. But they're a highly respected paper. That doesn't mean I agree with them always, I don't. But they write well and generally make me think.

 

What you refer to as insulting is essentially just your perspective. You've used the word a bunch of times now. What words specifically are insulting rather than just critical? "Shortsightedness," for instance ... isn't insulting, it's critical. And frankly true, as well. "He's a stupid man," would be insulting. And I agree 100% with Graham that his stewardship was a waste of time.

 

The roster has gotten worse under Whaley. Their record in the last five years started at 6-9, went 6-9 again, jumped to 9-7, dipped to 8-8 and ended up at 7-9. And they still don't appear to have a QB. A classic waste of time, IMHO. If you disagree, fine, that's your prerogative, but that's not insulting it's critical and all to correct.

 

I liked Felser too, a lot actually, but it's a different world now. If Felser were still writing, he wouldn't be writing like he did back then.

You always bring up Sullivan being offered one job at Newsday as somehow being evidence that he is so marketable. One job? when I first came out on the job market in my profession I had ten offers at the same time. One offer does not mean Sullivan is some gift to journalism. And again I like some of his stuff.

 

I also note you did not answer my question. Do you or do you not have any actual experience in the journalism field?

As for what I find insulting, you mention the Carucci phrase but conveniently leave out part of it. Is "shortsightedness" necessarily insulting? No. Is "typical shortsightedness" insulting? I would say yes. You might say no, but deliberately leaving out part of what I said to defend what was written is just weak on your part. To say a guy was a "waste" is deliberately insulting, done only to presumably bring more clicks to a website in my opinion.

 

Finally, as for Felser changing his writing style now? Not a chance.

[GunnerBill]

 

But they write well

 

They really don't. Vic is the exception. Vic writes pretty well whether you agree or disagree with his content. Graham's writing is not great and Sullivan's is brutal.