Bucky Gleason Leaving TBN After Requesting a Buyout - Jerry Sullivan and Now Tim Graham Out

[BadLandsMeanie]

33 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Are you paid for your work? Do you have official status that his been given by a recognized professional organization? If not, you are by definition an amateur, and it's actually not a debatable point. Amateurs are occasionally better than official professionals, of course.

Yeah he said so in his post earlier in this thread.

 

As an experienced message board amateur, I can tell you it is best practice to always read the entire thread before you get into a debate within the thread! It was predetermined that you would lose this exchange with Gunner, before you even started.

 

Anyway carry on! I see your point about piling on when somebody gets fired.  I am staying away from doing that myself. But it is hard. Low blows. Personal insults, a snotty disposition. One of Mr Sullivan's screen names  on the old BBMB was "abillsfanwhocanspell" for example. So for me it is hard to read the stuff about how nice a man he is. And Tim Graham even tweeted "I love you" to him. But i am keeping my mouth shut. But I sure don't blame the people who are not! And in this instance I don't think it is fair to blame them.

 

 

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

http://stilltalkintv.com/2012/04/the-news-suspends-sports-reporter/

 

 

http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/21/bucky-gleason-ub-looks-toward-buffalo-outsider-for-inside-job/

 

Thanks for the link. When a reporter crosses a line, deliberately or not, they should be held accountable. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. In their business you have to properly attribute your story. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes not it is not properly done. Then that transgression needs to be addressed. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

12 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Sulky CAN write, he just cannot write WELL.   I did spend some time as a newspaper editor.

So what the devil is wrong with this latest crop of editors?!  Were they not required to read what staff is writing?

[nucci]

7 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

So did George Costanza.  

he's not Penske material

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I don't consider myself a hater. I'm not even a stalwart supporter of either reporter. What I disagree with is the demonizing of these reporters because they are critics of the teams they covered. There are more than enough wallflowers covering these two franchises that have struggled for a generation. What I find unfair is because they are contrarians in a room overflowing with ass kissers they get singled out and vilified. If one disagrees with what they write then disagree. This cause to rile up the mob because they don't follow the company line is what I find objectionable. 

I agree with this, but I'd like your opinion on why I found them objectionable.  Writing style was one.  They just resorted to juvenile, snarky comments way too often when talking about the Bills or Sabres.  Sullivan especially.  You could tell he had the ability to be a good writer when he'd write articles about other teams, his golf stuff, etc.  But when it came to the Bills or Sabres the mean spirited snarky crap came out.  Same with Gleason.  I have no problem with negative comments.  I have a problem when they're written in a juvenile, self-serving way.

 

Second, they would contradict themselves many times.  They'd complain about something, then completely reverse their position just be critical again.  Gleason was terrible at this, and an example is cited above with the giving up of the Sabres when they were trying to get the top draft pick.  When you do that stuff, what it says to me is you've lost any objectivity in your commentary.  And it's unprofessional.

 

Commentators and paid to comment.  And many times their comments are negative.  But the writers I like (and I always talk about Felser, who is my favorite all time) could do so in a well written, professional manner.  Felser never made himself part of the story.  These guys, with their snarkiness, their personal insults towards folks (the Pegulas being an example), did so often.  So my objection to them was not that they took teams to task; all good columnists do.  Mine was that they acted in an unprofessional manner too often, and lowered themselves to cheap shots instead of writing more professionally.

 

Your thoughts?

 

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Yeah he said so in his post earlier in this thread.

 

As an experienced message board amateur, I can tell you it is best practice to always read the entire thread before you get into a debate within the thread! It was predetermined that you would lose this exchange with Gunner, before you even started.

 

Anyway carry on! I see your point about piling on when somebody gets fired.  I am staying away from doing that myself. But it is hard. Low blows. Personal insults, a snotty disposition. One of Mr Sullivan's screen names  on the old BBMB was "abillsfanwhocanspell" for example. So for me it is hard to read the stuff about how nice a man he is. And Tim Graham even tweeted "I love you" to him. But i am keeping my mouth shut. But I sure don't blame the people who are not! And in this instance I don't think it is fair to blame them.

 

 

13 pages - i ain’t reading the whole thing! Life is too short. Anyway, I’m glad Gunner reiterated his qualifications.

[hondo in seattle]

Here are my thoughts - knowing I won't change anyone's mind.

I didn't mind that Sully was critical of the Bills per se.  What really bothered me is that he  simply didn't offer the two things I really want in an article: he didn't inform me and he didn't entertain me. 

 

He burned bridges at OBD and didn't have any insider sources.  Nor did he have a particular deep knowledge of the game that provided me with insights I couldn't find here and elsewhere.

 

Sully was just a curmudgeon.  He would find a cloud on the sunniest day.  Even when the Bills won, or made good moves, he found something to whine about.   When I read his articles - which I did with less and less frequency over the years - I wasn't amused, I wasn't enlightened, I wasn't engaged.  I was just bored with the relentless Sully shtick.   His negativity - bordering on nastiness at times - was the only take-away.  I got nothing I wanted from his writings. 

 

So will I now subscribe to the BN?  Losing Sully makes no difference to me because that was never part of the offer in my mind.  Had I paid, I wouldn't have read his articles anyway.  If the BN replaces Bucky and Sully with better writers, though, I'll definitely pony up.  

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree with this, but I'd like your opinion on why I found them objectionable.  Writing style was one.  They just resorted to juvenile, snarky comments way too often when talking about the Bills or Sabres.  Sullivan especially.  You could tell he had the ability to be a good writer when he'd write articles about other teams, his golf stuff, etc.  But when it came to the Bills or Sabres the mean spirited snarky crap came out.  Same with Gleason.  I have no problem with negative comments.  I have a problem when they're written in a juvenile, self-serving way.

 

Second, they would contradict themselves many times.  They'd complain about something, then completely reverse their position just be critical again.  Gleason was terrible at this, and an example is cited above with the giving up of the Sabres when they were trying to get the top draft pick.  When you do that stuff, what it says to me is you've lost any objectivity in your commentary.  And it's unprofessional.

 

Commentators and paid to comment.  And many times their comments are negative.  But the writers I like (and I always talk about Felser, who is my favorite all time) could do so in a well written, professional manner.  Felser never made himself part of the story.  These guys, with their snarkiness, their personal insults towards folks (the Pegulas being an example), did so often.  So my objection to them was not that they took teams to task; all good columnists do.  Mine was that they acted in an unprofessional manner too often, and lowered themselves to cheap shots instead of writing more professionally.

 

Your thoughts?

 

What I find interesting is that these two curmudgeons draw a disproportionate visceral response from their readers. If they are poor writers or their negative attitudes are so tiresome or unappealing there is a simple solution: Don't read their stories. There are more than enough fawning reporters who write glowing stories on the franchises that have struggled for a generation or so. So two contrarian voices consistently write critical pieces, very often warranted and sometimes not, in a capacity filled room with prostrating reporters. So what! You can't handle the against the stream view? Very often with these two acidic individuals the point is meaningful but the delivery is excessively antagonistic that it crowds out the valid point. 

 

I often read op ed pieces from a couple of newspapers. There are columnists that I read and some that I don't. There are columnists that I strenuously disagree with but read their columns because they are well written and incisive. Getting a different perspective is very often more illuminating than just reading columns that you agree with. 

 

I have no criticism for anyone who doesn't like these reporters. What I find befuddling is the degree that these individuals bother people when the obvious solution is to ignore them. There seems to be a relishing of venomous responses to them that I find odd. 

[hondo in seattle]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

What I find interesting is that these two curmudgeons draw a disproportionate visceral response from their readers. If they are poor writers or their negative attitudes are so tiresome or unappealing there is a simple solution: Don't read their stories. There are more than enough fawning reporters who write glowing stories on the franchises that have struggled for a generation or so. So two contrarian voices consistently write critical pieces, very often warranted and sometimes not, in a capacity filled room with prostrating reporters. So what! You can't handle the against the stream view? Very often with these two acidic individuals the point is meaningful but the delivery is excessively antagonistic that it crowds out the valid point. 

 

I often read op ed pieces from a couple of newspapers. There are columnists that I read and some that I don't. There are columnists that I strenuously disagree with but read their columns because they are well written and incisive. Getting a different perspective is very often more illuminating than just reading columns that you agree with. 

 

I have no criticism for anyone who doesn't like these reporters. What I find befuddling is the degree that these individuals bother people when the obvious solution is to ignore them. There seems to be a relishing of venomous responses to them that I find odd. 

 

I agree with you.  Both in politics and sports, I make a point of reading journalists with a different  point of view than my own.  Even here I find some of the best posts are from guys I disagree with.  Sully just wasn't "illuminating" as far as I was concerned.  

 

But, you're right, the venom is uncalled for.    The world dumps on all of us enough as it is.  We don't need to dump on each other.  I'm hopeful that Sully's departure bodes well for the BN but I wish Sully himself nothing but peace, health and happiness.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

33 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

13 pages - i ain’t reading the whole thing! Life is too short. Anyway, I’m glad Gunner reiterated his qualifications.

 

Equally I didn't see it at an exchange to win or lose. I do, however, feel that I am least suitably qualified to have an opinion on his ability as a writer.  When it comes to positive or negative, homer or hater - that is ultimately going to be subjective every time. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by GunnerBill

[BadLandsMeanie]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What I find interesting is that these two curmudgeons draw a disproportionate visceral response from their readers. If they are poor writers or their negative attitudes are so tiresome or unappealing there is a simple solution: Don't read their stories. There are more than enough fawning reporters who write glowing stories on the franchises that have struggled for a generation or so. So two contrarian voices consistently write critical pieces, very often warranted and sometimes not, in a capacity filled room with prostrating reporters. So what! You can't handle the against the stream view? Very often with these two acidic individuals the point is meaningful but the delivery is excessively antagonistic that it crowds out the valid point. 

 

I often read op ed pieces from a couple of newspapers. There are columnists that I read and some that I don't. There are columnists that I strenuously disagree with but read their columns because they are well written and incisive. Getting a different perspective is very often more illuminating than just reading columns that you agree with. 

 

I have no criticism for anyone who doesn't like these reporters. What I find befuddling is the degree that these individuals bother people when the obvious solution is to ignore them. There seems to be a relishing of venomous responses to them that I find odd. 

Let me help you out.

 

They are constantly drawn to our attention here because of the news board. If you scan that for the latest news you then see the title of every article they write. That is one reason why they remain in the conversation here even though most preferred not to read them.

 

Second, there is the consideration that two of just a few columnists covering football in the only newspaper in the team's hometown, are people most do not want to read. Understand? You got 6 and 2 are non starters it is hard to always ignore that when you want to know about the team.

 

Third, it has been an ongoing discussion here about TBN and the subscription model. So again it is brought up, a lot, and then people reflect why they do not subscribe and it is because they want to ignore and put out of their minds the content and the writers at that paper.

 

If I am being honest I know that won't help you, because it is all butt obvious. You are intent on arguing a viewpoint and will do so. But really being dense and pretending the obvious isn't there as you construct your arguments won't help you very much to win your points.

 

 

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Equally I didn't see it at an exchange to win or lose. I do, however, feel that I am least suitably qualified to have an opinion on his ability as a writer.  When it comes to positive or negative, homer or hater - that is ultimately going to be subjective every time. 

No disrespect, but what qualifications does one need to have an “opinion” on another’s ability as a writer? Credentials as an editor or other related discipline? You hit the nail on the head with your comment on subjectivity. When a journalist puts his work out there for public consumption, that work is subject to criticism from writing professionals and lay people alike. Credentials mean little in that regard. 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

No disrespect, but what qualifications does one need to have an “opinion” on another’s ability as a writer? Credentials as an editor or other related discipline? You hit the nail on the head with your comment on subjectivity. When a journalist puts his work out there for public consumption, that work is subject to criticism from writing professionals and lay people alike. Credentials mean little in that regard. 

 

I think that is true. But Dave questioned whether an amateur was within their right to question a professional. I simply intended to say that even by that standard I feel my opinion is valid. 

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think that is true. But Dave questioned whether an amateur was within their right to question a professional. I simply intended to say that even by that standard I feel my opinion is valid. 

I didn't question whether it was in their right at all -- I was just saying that the predictably frenzied response was overdetermined given the "relationship" between people here and non-reporter opinion writers like Sullivan.

[Lurker]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What I disagree with is the demonizing of these reporters because they are critics of the teams they covered. 

 

You're lumping criticism of Heckle and Jeckle into one bucket--they were critics of the Bills and Sabres.   That's far too simplistic, especially if you had any experience reading great local columnists from the past (Felser, Kelley, Ranallo) or out-of-town guys in other major cities.   People who could criticize with the best of them, but also brought more to the reader.    

 

Good criticism needs to inform, entertain and stimulate thought--not just B&M.   It needs to be accurate and truthful, not a mental fart in the wind.   It needs to cut to the heart of the matter, not smash the china on the floor and act like a spoiled toddler.   It needs to include other knowledgeable opinions, local and national, rather than just the voices in the writers head or half-baked nattering from local nabobs.    In other words, more clear-eyed illumination, less torches and pitchforks.

 

IMO, both guys failed that test and ultimately lost their gigs.   People applauding that move are looking for better writers, full stop...

 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I don't consider myself a hater. I'm not even a stalwart supporter of either reporter. What I disagree with is the demonizing of these reporters because they are critics of the teams they covered. There are more than enough wallflowers covering these two franchises that have struggled for a generation. What I find unfair is because they are contrarians in a room overflowing with ass kissers they get singled out and vilified. If one disagrees with what they write then disagree. This cause to rile up the mob because they don't follow the company line is what I find objectionable. 

 

Maybe you should reconsider.

1 hour ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/21/bucky-gleason-ub-looks-toward-buffalo-outsider-for-inside-job/

 

 

I have to correct myself. I conflated another article with the minstrel remark with Bucky's. I apologize for the error. This was the article that mixed me up.

 

https://www.ubbullrun.com/2018/3/22/17150354/bucky-gleason-rides-again-attacks-ub-athletics

Edited May 30, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[BringBackOrton]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Doesn't make sense? How difficult is it to understand? Bucky and Sully's biggest fans were the haters. People who loved the negativity. Was that not obvious? Are you arguing it was their Pulitzer-level writing skills?

This kills the robot.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

https://www.ubbullrun.com/2018/3/22/17150354/bucky-gleason-rides-again-attacks-ub-athletics

 

 

3 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

This kills the robot.

 

 

Actually it confirms that Sully was mostly a negative SOB. The fact that Talley rose above his attacks is a credit to Darryl, not Jerry Sullivan.

Edited May 30, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[BringBackOrton]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

https://www.ubbullrun.com/2018/3/22/17150354/bucky-gleason-rides-again-attacks-ub-athletics

 

 

 

Actually it confirms that Sully was mostly a negative SOB. The fact that Talley rose above his attacks is a credit to Darryl, not Jerry Sullivan.

Hmmm, let's consult Darryl.

 

"From the bottom of my heart thank you Jerry."

 

Welp

[Delete This Account]

here's the actual irony.

 

for all of those who claim Jerry was negative, it's quite apparent you folks don't read your own message board.

there are and continue to be far more caustic takes here than anywhere else. 

this is where doom and gloom has resided and festered for lo, so many years. and yet, of course, people need their straw man in order to focus upon their blame. it's all too convenient and lazy and predictable. yes, these are the same things Jerry has been accused of here.

 

i find it laughable that some here suggest they will now consider subscribing to The Buffalo News.

please, come forth with proof of this happening. i dare you to show me how wrong i am. go ahead. subscribe now that Jerry's gone. 

 

otherwise, i accuse the haters here of the same thing they accuse Jerry of: Bull and Sh@t.

 

jw