I always defend WGR...

[Delete This Account]

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.

No you were NOT agreeing with me.

You were questioning my post in saying: "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?"

 

You appear to be reading into things to have them fit your point of view. And you failed to realize that my reference to fans being in a bar was equating that to reporters in a press box making comments, and not what they write. To wit: The anecdote about Chris Watson, that never made it into print (though, perhaps it should have) because it was humorous.

 

And I'm not exactly sure about your sense of humor, because I'm not entirely sure what "positive but edgy" means.

 

As for Schopp, please note that I referenced "writers" in specific, because you had questioned "reporters" being always negative. Schopp is not a reporter. He is a commentator and works in a different medium than I, or Sully. And while Sully's a columnist, he's also a writer ... do I have to keep explaining myself or would you please read what's written, how about we start there, eh?

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

My apologies. I forgot to include one of the earlier posts you had written in the thread, in which you referred to Sully as, and I quote, "a wanker" and an, how'd you put it so nicely, "as$hole." (see below).

I sit corrected.

 

jw

 

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.

 

 

 

 

post Apr 13 2009, 05:41 PM

Post #53

 

 

"As Lori will tell you, it's his job to criticise. But that doesn't preclude him from still being an as$hole who'd rather take the easy, 'drunk on a barstool' invective approach to criticism, rather than the harder 'do my homework and add value' approach, like his predessors at the 'Snooze and CE used to do.

 

He's a Wanker..."

[ans4e64]

No you were NOT agreeing with me.

You were questioning my post in saying: "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?"

 

You appear to be reading into things to have them fit your point of view. And you failed to realize that my reference to fans being in a bar was equating that to reporters in a press box making comments, and not what they write. To wit: The anecdote about Chris Watson, that never made it into print (though, perhaps it should have) because it was humorous.

 

And I'm not exactly sure about your sense of humor, because I'm not entirely sure what "positive but edgy" means.

 

As for Schopp, please note that I referenced "writers" in specific, because you had questioned "reporters" being always negative. Schopp is not a reporter. He is a commentator and works in a different medium than I, or Sully. And while Sully's a columnist, he's also a writer ... do I have to keep explaining myself or would you please read what's written, how about we start there, eh?

 

jw

 

I'm going to ask you to join me in reading what's written, because you must have missed the part where I said, "A positive report with an eye towards skepticism does seem like the modus of good reporting,"

 

Forgive me for being confused when you comment in a thread with "WGR" and "Schopp" in the title, and then post comments that have nothing to do with either of those words. Silly me, I should have assumed you weren't including Schopp while commenting in the Mike Schopp thread.

 

I'm not going to go round upon round with you here. Sullivan, Schopp and others mostly write, comment or act in negative ways and there is nothing that is going to convince me that either that is not true, or that it is acceptable. I could care less how Sully is as a person or neighbor, or what he says in the press box. When I hear him on air or occasionally read a column of his, it makes me question why he is even interested in covering the Bills. I say the same for Schopp, only worse. I at least respect Sully because he actually cares about the Bills, perhaps even more than the average fan. Schopp... not so much.

[Lurker]

My apologies. I forgot to include one of the earlier posts you had written in the thread, in which you referred to Sully as, and I quote, "a wanker" and an, how'd you put it so nicely, "as$hole." (see below).

I sit corrected.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

 

 

post Apr 13 2009, 05:41 PM

Post #53

 

 

"As Lori will tell you, it's his job to criticise. But that doesn't preclude him from still being an as$hole who'd rather take the easy, 'drunk on a barstool' invective approach to criticism, rather than the harder 'do my homework and add value' approach, like his predessors at the 'Snooze and CE used to do.

 

He's a Wanker..."

So I think he's an as$hole? Whoop-a-de-fuggn-doo. Sorry I hurt you're tender sensibilities (BTW, are you keeping a 'greatest hits' collection of my posts somewhere, John?).

 

I take it you'd like me to be polite about how I view Jerry's work, so I won't 'sully' his character. OK, just for you, John, I'll try hard not to call him an as$hole any more in a family environment like TSW.

 

But that won't change one iota of what I think about his style or output...

[Delete This Account]

So I think he's an as$hole? Whoop-a-de-fuggn-doo. Sorry I hurt you're tender sensibilities (BTW, are you keeping a 'greatest hits' collection of my posts somewhere, John?).

 

I take it you'd like me to be polite about how I view Jerry's work, so I won't 'sully' his character. OK, just for you, John, I'll try hard not to call him an as$hole any more in a family environment like TSW.

 

But that won't change one iota of what I think about his style or output...

So let me get this straight. First you say you didn't "assinate" his character, and then when you're called out on it, you provide a half-a*sed apology and question my "tender sensibilities."

At least I'm not the one back-sliding here. Call Sully whatever you want, but don't pretend you didn't do exactly what I called you out on doing when in fact you did.

 

You're not Schopp, by any chance? Because this all reads like something some here seem to suggest he sometimes does.

 

(There ans, I worked Schopp into the post.)

 

jw

[OCinBuffalo]

I just have to say:

 

Assinate? LOL! Spit out my Mt. Dew on that one.

[Lurker]

So let me get this straight. First you say you didn't "assinate" his character, and then when you're called out on it, you provide a half-a*sed apology and question my "tender sensibilities."

At least I'm not the one back-sliding here. Call Sully whatever you want, but don't pretend you didn't do exactly what I called you out on doing when in fact you did.

 

You're not Schopp, by any chance? Because this all reads like something some here seem to suggest he sometimes does.

 

(There ans, I worked Schopp into the post.)

 

jw

I guess your definition of character's different than mine.

 

You seem to think I've denigrated Jerry's character somehow by saying I think he's a journalistic as$hole who doesn't work as hard as his predecessors. Character's a lot more important concept (and totally distinct from) the "500-words three times a week, collect a paycheck" job the BN hired him for.

 

I don't see any backsliding on my part...

[Delete This Account]

I guess your definition of character's different than mine.

 

You seem to think I've denigrated Jerry's character somehow by saying I think he's a journalistic as$hole who doesn't work as hard as his predecessors. Character's a lot more important concept (and totally distinct from) the "500-words three times a week, collect a paycheck" job the BN hired him for.

 

I don't see any backsliding on my part...

we seem to have a different definition of back-sliding, too.

 

jw

[Lurker]

we seem to have a different definition of back-sliding, too.

 

jw

And you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Go figure.

 

I'll continue to slag Jerry here and elsewhere, John. The good thing about the Internet is that I don't have to buy ink by the barrel, either...

[Delete This Account]

And you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Go figure.

 

I'll continue to slag Jerry here and elsewhere, John. The good thing about the Internet is that I don't have to buy ink by the barrel, either...

no, you wouldn't want to admit getting your hands dirty.

[Lurker]

no, you wouldn't want to admit getting your hands dirty.

Amen to that, at journalist wages...

[Delete This Account]

Hey, i made the practice squad, because of all this. don't know if that's a good thing because I didn't want to lose my amateur status.

 

jw

[Lurker]

Hey, i made the practice squad, because of all this. don't know if that's a good thing because I didn't want to lose my amateur status.

 

jw

Glad I could help with your post count...

[Watching since 1964]

I'm sensing the anger towards Schopp leaving this thread.

 

I'll blame...

 

NEWMAN!!!

[bills44]

I'm sensing the anger towards Schopp leaving this thread.

 

I'll blame...

 

NEWMAN!!!

 

 

Mike Schopp

 

Jerry Sullivan

[wnyguy]

Aaaaah, one of my favorite subjects, Schopp and his stick as a sports talk radio host. I can't stand the guy, in fact I pray for the day he gets fired or quits. Yet, in a few minutes, as I drive home from work, my radio will be tuned to GR55 and I will listen the entire 40 minutes it takes me. Yes, yes, I know their will be the stupid Ten Opinions In A Row spot, maybe a Sports Hall of Fame Rejection spot thrown in. I know I'll be forced to hear how Schopp won or lost a game of Balderdash, Stratego, Scattegories, or whatever, but maybe, for just a few seconds, there will be talk about my favorite subjects, the Bills or Sabres. And those fleeting seconds, that are like finding gems in a vast field of horse manure, is what keeps me tuned in.

[The Senator]

Aaaaah, one of my favorite subjects, Schopp and his stick as a sports talk radio host. I can't stand the guy, in fact I pray for the day he gets fired or quits. Yet, in a few minutes, as I drive home from work, my radio will be tuned to GR55 and I will listen the entire 40 minutes it takes me. Yes, yes, I know their will be the stupid Ten Opinions In A Row spot, maybe a Sports Hall of Fame Rejection spot thrown in. I know I'll be forced to hear how Schopp won or lost a game of Balderdash, Stratego, Scattegories, or whatever, but maybe, for just a few seconds, there will be talk about my favorite subjects, the Bills or Sabres. And those fleeting seconds, that are like finding gems in a vast field of horse manure, is what keeps me tuned in.

cannot...bear....to....listen....must...change...station....

 

i listen to howard simon in the AM - hate schopp, absolutely refuse to tune in when he's on. he's an arrogant, ignorant a-hole, with very limited knowledge of any sport.

[yall]

Aaaaah, one of my favorite subjects, Schopp and his stick as a sports talk radio host. I can't stand the guy, in fact I pray for the day he gets fired or quits. Yet, in a few minutes, as I drive home from work, my radio will be tuned to GR55 and I will listen the entire 40 minutes it takes me. Yes, yes, I know their will be the stupid Ten Opinions In A Row spot, maybe a Sports Hall of Fame Rejection spot thrown in. I know I'll be forced to hear how Schopp won or lost a game of Balderdash, Stratego, Scattegories, or whatever, but maybe, for just a few seconds, there will be talk about my favorite subjects, the Bills or Sabres. And those fleeting seconds, that are like finding gems in a vast field of horse manure, is what keeps me tuned in.

 

If you really can't stand their show, give Brad Riter a try on 1230 AM. Much more enjoyable listening experience.

[Watching since 1964]

I had tuned out months earlier because of the attitude the host.

 

But I took a chance and tuned in to the postgame show after a game at the Ralph last year.

 

The very first caller I heard had an opposing viewpoint to the host and was quickly and loudly drowned out before he could finish making his statement.

 

It was embarrassing to listen to.

 

So that was it for me.

 

Addition by subtraction.

[jester43]

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.

oh for god's sake... stop.