Sad day. Tim Graham out at Buffalo News

[EasternOHBillsFan]

4 hours ago, stony said:

With what writers?

 

They gutted their sports department, which seems to have directly led to their best remaining writer deciding to move elsewhere.  

 

So where did these "best remaining writers" come from, the pumpkin patch? Harry Potter's wand?

 

There is nothing wrong with new blood. The BN needed it badly, and now they will have it.

[Beast]

9 hours ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

 

This right here. Had the pleasure of taking a sportswriting class taught by him (check out the podcast), and he was one of the best teachers I ever had. Master of writing. 

 

There are no “Masters of Writing”at the BN.

 

None.

[Roundybout]

1 minute ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

There are no “Masters of Writing”at the BN.

 

None.

 

We will agree to disagree. I thought his piece on OJ was terrific.

 

Sean Kirst is great too.

10 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

No.

 

It is clear that Tim left the news by choice. 

 

Pretty sure there is waaaaaaaaay more going on behind the scenes.

Edited June 14, 2018 by BillsEnthusiast

[Putin]

9 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

this is what we all wanted, right?

 

No local sports reporting?

Well we still got Mike and the Bulldog ?

[stony]

28 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

So where did these "best remaining writers" come from, the pumpkin patch? Harry Potter's wand?

 

There is nothing wrong with new blood. The BN needed it badly, and now they will have it.

I have no clue what you're inferring.  

 

I said "writer," meaning Tim Graham (singular) effectively decided to leave the BN for a new opportunity.  I have no wand, but an educated guess might presume it was because he saw three long-time colleagues resign/take buyouts.  Hopefully the BN gets it right, some have inferred they'll hire a few new writers.  I have no clue.  

 

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

It's like that Carly Simon song, "You're So Vain," I bet you think this thread is about you.

 

Sorry, Hap. Outta my hands.

Vain?  He's not a metal rooster on a farmhouse.  It's vein dude.

[bbb]

6 hours ago, stony said:

With what writers?

 

They gutted their sports department, which seems to have directly led to their best remaining writer deciding to move elsewhere.  

 

Mark Gaughan is their best writer and has been for many years.

 

John Vogl is the only one who left that wasn't a punk either in print or online.  Maybe it is all about voices who were bad for business - as Sully said himself. 

[stony]

3 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Mark Gaughan is their best writer and has been for many years.

 

John Vogl is the only one who left that wasn't a punk either in print or online.  Maybe it is all about voices who were bad for business - as Sully said himself. 

Gaughan stepped back from the beat by his own accord.  If he chooses to come back into the fold, the better for us all. 

 

TG was the BN's best writer IMO.  Its a big loss for me. 

 

Vogl wrote a really solid gamer, which to me is lost art these days.  

[folz]

52 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Vain?  He's not a metal rooster on a farmhouse.  It's vein dude.

 

"Vain" is correct. "You're so vain"

 

"Vane" is the correct spelling for a "weathervane"

 

"Vein" is used for the vessels that carry the blood around our bodies, or a mineral deposit in a rock (like a vein of gold)

 

 

[bbb]

29 minutes ago, stony said:

Gaughan stepped back from the beat by his own accord.  If he chooses to come back into the fold, the better for us all. 

 

TG was the BN's best writer IMO.  Its a big loss for me. 

 

Vogl wrote a really solid gamer, which to me is lost art these days.  

 

I do agree that Graham was a good writer.  But, like so many have said, I find it hard to separate his writing from his twitter persona.

 

Mark Gaughan has been writing a lot of the Bills articles lately.  I get the actual paper.  Sometimes I start reading an article and not look who wrote it.............And, then a lot of times I'm like this has some good insights, it must be Mark Gaughan, and I turn the page back, and it almost always is him..............He was doing college sports for a few years, but they put him back on the Bills this past year. 

[KD in CA]

8 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I do agree that Graham was a good writer.  But, like so many have said, I find it hard to separate his writing from his twitter persona.

I would think not.

 

As a writer, didn’t he use Twitter as a platform the same way he used the newspaper, as a forum to express his views on topics (sports) he was being paid to cover?

 

As such, I don’t understand the argument that one is supposed to ‘separate’ them.  It sounds like a weak excuse for his boorish behavior that apparently cost him his job.

 

Very few jobs out there are willing to overlook you being an outright a-hole because you’re good at your job.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by KD in CA

[JoPar_v2]

8 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I do agree that Graham was a good writer.  But, like so many have said, I find it hard to separate his writing from his twitter persona.

 

Mark Gaughan has been writing a lot of the Bills articles lately.  I get the actual paper.  Sometimes I start reading an article and not look who wrote it.............And, then a lot of times I'm like this has some good insights, it must be Mark Gaughan, and I turn the page back, and it almost always is him..............He was doing college sports for a few years, but they put him back on the Bills this past year. 

His twitter “persona” was a plus for me. He gave trolls on twitter exactly what they deserved - they don’t deserve to be reasoned with he was crass sure and shut them down best he could. Made me want to read his actual work even more.

[bbb]

5 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said:

His twitter “persona” was a plus for me. He gave trolls on twitter exactly what they deserved - they don’t deserve to be reasoned with he was crass sure and shut them down best he could. Made me want to read his actual work even more.

 

He was the troll

[Kelly the Dog]

16 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

He was the troll

Give me examples of when he just started it and went after someone. I saw dozens and dozens of times when someone would tweet to him or respond to him, and then and only then did he go off on them. Personally, I found it funny. But I am snarky myself and I understand why people don't always like it or get it. But he was not the troll. He responded to trolls. One can argue he went too far or had thin skin. He never started it as far as I have seen or know.

[bbb]

16 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Give me examples of when he just started it and went after someone. I saw dozens and dozens of times when someone would tweet to him or respond to him, and then and only then did he go off on them. Personally, I found it funny. But I am snarky myself and I understand why people don't always like it or get it. But he was not the troll. He responded to trolls. One can argue he went too far or had thin skin. He never started it as far as I have seen or know.

 

I'm not going looking for examples.

 

I do remember the first time I came across his BS.  It was during the 2012 Republican convention - and this was before most everybody decided they had to let everybody know their political opinions.  He said some mocking thing, which really didn't bother me.............But, then when he got some flack, he starts going off and then tweeting "you don't know the first thing about my politics and it's none of your business"  What - you just told us the first thing and made it our business...............Then his pushbacks were "I bet your 50 followers will like that"....................Yeah, you have thousands because you're such a popular guy and not because people are looking for Bills and other sports news.  He still uses that line, and it is SO stupid.

[JoPar_v2]

10 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I'm not going looking for examples.

 

I do remember the first time I came across his BS.  It was during the 2012 Republican convention - and this was before most everybody decided they had to let everybody know their political opinions.  He said some mocking thing, which really didn't bother me.............But, then when he got some flack, he starts going off and then tweeting "you don't know the first thing about my politics and it's none of your business"  What - you just told us the first thing and made it our business...............Then his pushbacks were "I bet your 50 followers will like that"....................Yeah, you have thousands because you're such a popular guy and not because people are looking for Bills and other sports news.  He still uses that line, and it is SO stupid.

Very telling. So do you really dislike his behavior on twitter or do you dislike his political leanings?

[Kelly the Dog]

15 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

I'm not going looking for examples.

 

I do remember the first time I came across his BS.  It was during the 2012 Republican convention - and this was before most everybody decided they had to let everybody know their political opinions.  He said some mocking thing, which really didn't bother me.............But, then when he got some flack, he starts going off and then tweeting "you don't know the first thing about my politics and it's none of your business"  What - you just told us the first thing and made it our business...............Then his pushbacks were "I bet your 50 followers will like that"....................Yeah, you have thousands because you're such a popular guy and not because people are looking for Bills and other sports news.  He still uses that line, and it is SO stupid.

So, in other words, exactly what I said.

[folz]

Look, I understand that some people know Tim personally, are colleagues, or just enjoy his writing. But you also have to understand that a lot of people do not have positive feelings towards him because of how he handled himself on this board and because of tweets like the Vic/Bennett tweet (which just wasn't a very nice thing to do, regardless of it was partially true or whatever). And I'm not sure how this turned into a thread about sportswriters in general or how hard or easy a job it is (writing isn't as easy as people think, especially when you have tight deadlines and continually have to come up with new stories or unique angles on news events). But Tim gets this type of reaction because of his own actions. I don't know him personally, but from what I have seen from afar, I don't think I would want to. He may be a great guy and a good friend to those in his life, but he does not come across that way via social media. Now, I don't wish the guy any ill will and I wouldn't refuse to read an article of his if it seemed interesting, but I do understand why people don't like him (based on his public persona). He might be better off (if he cares about how he is perceived by the public) if he just let his sports writing speak for itself.

 

And to Kelly, it doesn't really matter who started it...but how you handle it. He could choose to ignore, he could just respond with facts that back his opinion up, he could call the person out for their behavior without reducing himself to the same behavior, etc. But Tim's default seems to be to get very unpleasant.

[Kelly the Dog]

3 minutes ago, folz said:

Look, I understand that some people know Tim personally, are colleagues, or just enjoy his writing. But you also have to understand that a lot of people do not have positive feelings towards him because of how he handled himself on this board and because of tweets like the Vic/Bennett tweet (which just wasn't a very nice thing to do, regardless of it was partially true or whatever). And I'm not sure how this turned into a thread about sportswriters in general or how hard or easy a job it is (writing isn't as easy as people think, especially when you have tight deadlines and continually have to come up with new stories or unique angles on news events). But Tim gets this type of reaction because of his own actions. I don't know him personally, but from what I have seen from afar, I don't think I would want to. He may be a great guy and a good friend to those in his life, but he does not come across that way via social media. Now, I don't wish the guy any ill will and I wouldn't refuse to read an article of his if it seemed interesting, but I do understand why people don't like him (based on his public persona). He might be better off (if he cares about how he is perceived by the public) if he just let his sports writing speak for itself.

 

And to Kelly, it doesn't really matter who started it...but how you handle it. He could choose to ignore, he could just respond with facts that back his opinion up, he could call the person out for their behavior without reducing himself to the same behavior, etc. But Tim's default seems to be to get very unpleasant.

I was responding to another poster who stated that TG was the troll, which by definition is the one starting the discourse. And I responded that he was just responding to people who picked a fight with him, or criticized him, and then he went too far in his reaction. I said in this thread that he is thin-skinned and snarky several times already. I just wish people would separate tweets from sportswriting. I guess it's too hard for a lot of people and that's a sign of the times.

[bbb]

45 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said:

Very telling. So do you really dislike his behavior on twitter or do you dislike his political leanings?

 

Both.  But, I guess you didn't catch the part where he said we have no idea what his political leanings are.  There was the part that got me.

 

41 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

So, in other words, exactly what I said.

 

What?!?